|
 The justices, during an hour of arguments, indicated that a gap of
just a few minutes in which there is no opportunity for jurors to be
exposed to any information that could prejudice their views of the
case may be permissible.
That would mean North Dakota man Rocky Dietz, who sued a man named
Hillary Bouldin for negligence after the 2009 accident in the city
of Bozeman, would lose his bid for a new trial.
Bouldin ran a red light and his vehicle hit the passenger side of
Dietz's vehicle. Bouldin admitted he was responsible for the
collision.
The jury initially awarded Dietz nothing. But the judge recalled the
jurors within minutes after they had been discharged from duty,
reminding them that Bouldin's lawyers had earlier stipulated Dietz
was due at least $10,000 to cover medical expenses already incurred.
 The jury subsequently awarded $15,000 to Dietz. Dietz's lawyers
objected to the judge's action to recall the jury, contending that
the fact that the jurors initially had awarded him no money
indicated they were not fair and impartial toward him.
The justices sought clarity on the outer boundaries of what could be
permissible in recalling a jury, such as the amount of time the jury
was discharged or whether jurors had a chance to leave the
courthouse before being recalled.
Questions from justices including Chief Justice John Roberts
indicated their greatest concern was to ensure jurors would not be
exposed to prejudicial information after being discharged.
[to top of second column] |
"Why doesn't it make sense to say, well, if they're right out in the
hall ... bring them back in and ask, just as the judge did here,
'Have you talked to anybody about the case?'" Roberts asked.
Justice Stephen Breyer said if there are no signs of prejudice, it
would be more efficient to recall the jurors rather than conduct a
new trial with a different jury.
"Now, if it saves a lot of money, and that's the only difference,
why don't we say the efficiency argument is what counts?" Breyer
asked.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former trial judge, noted that
immediately after some trials juries can be exposed to prejudicial
remarks, including expressions of emotion from family members and
comments from court staff.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
