Dispute Resolution: Test your understanding

        Exercise:  What is Voir Dire?

Because the jury will ultimately decide the outcome of the case, the selection of the jury is a crucial component of any jury trial.  The process of selecting a jury is called voir dire.

In Voir dire, prospective jurors are asked questions in an attempt to determine if any are biased, could not decide the case fairly, or are otherwise unsuitable to serve on the jury, and thus, should not be selected.  Voir dire may be conducted by the judge, attorneys for the parties, or both and often begins with basic questions to determine if any of the prospective jurors are acquainted with the parties, their attorneys, or even key witnesses; how much (if anything) they have heard about the case; or if they have had experiences similar to those being litigated in the case or even engage in a similar occupation or profession.
In addition, the attorneys may use voir dire to get a feel for the personality of prospective jurors, their possible reactions to the case, and whether they might be sympathetic toward or hostile against either the plaintiff or the defendant.  Even before voir direbegins, the attorneys may be watching the jury pool for cues from nonverbal behavior (e.g., are some prospective jurors some interacting with others and if so, how well do they seem to get along; so some appear anxious, hostile, bored, or sullen) and body language (which prospective jurors are sitting with arms tightly crossed versus those who look more open and comfortable).

Directions:  Your instructor will divide the class into teams and assign each team one of the “cases” below.  Each team should then further divide itself (as equally as possible) so that half the team represents the plaintiff and the other half represents the defendant.
Assume that each of the assigned cases is about to go to trial; jury selection is scheduled to begin next week.  Each case sets out the plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant.  As counsel for either the plaintiff or the defendant, address each of the following items:

• What characteristics are you looking for in the “ideal” juror?
• What characteristics in a prospective juror might raise a concern to you and your client?
• Draft at least 5 questions that you might ask prospective jurors during voir dire in an attempt to determine if they might be sympathetic toward or biased against your client.  Although you may not use any of the broad questions in the introductory materials, you can build on them in crafting more specific questions.
  • Indicate answers to these questions that would be likely to concern you (and why), should this individual be on the jury.

       The Cases

The Dentist Who Played Christian Music
Nancy, Kimberly, Tammy and Sara sued their former employer, dentist Tina Marshall, for religious discrimination and wrongful discharge.  The four plaintiffs seek damages for loss of past and future income and benefits, humiliation and embarrassment, mental anxiety and emotional distress, and loss of professional reputation.  They have requested a jury trial.
The four women allege that they were reprimanded and fired for objecting to religious practices Dr. Marshall instituted in her office in 2013 after she became part of a local ministry.  According to their lawsuit, Dr. Marshall began holding mandatory morning prayer meetings and started streaming contemporary Christian music in her dental office to “ward off demons” even when patients and staff objected.
[Source:  “A Dentist is being Sued for Harassing Staff by Constantly Playing Christian Music,” published in the Washington Post on Jan. 15, 2016]

 

The Boy Killed by Pit Bulls
Four-year-old Tyrone Smith (fictitious name) was walking to school in Detroit with his mother on December 3, 2015.  While walking on a sidewalk, they passed by a fenced yard.  Four pit bulls in the yard were able to reach under the fence and yank Tyrone from his mother, who unsuccessfully tried to fight the dogs off.  They dragged and mauled Tyrone, who suffered severe bites to his abdomen before police arrived and shot and killed three of the dogs, and the fourth finally released his grip on Tyrone.  The child was taken to the hospital in critical condition and died a short time later.  His mother has filed a lawsuit against the owners of the dogs for the wrongful death of her child.
[Source:  http://www.popsugar.com/moms/Child-Killed-4-Pit-Bulls-During-Walk-School-Mom-39283665]

 

Man Grows Breasts after Taking Risperdal as Child
Nick Murray began taking Risperdal in March 2003 when he was 9 years old.  At the time, the FDA had approved Risperdal to treat schizophrenia in adults.   Murray took Risperdal for five years.  In 2006, the FDA expanded approval of the drug to include treating irritability in children and adolescents diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders.  At that time, manufacturer Johnson and Johnson added a warning that the drug could cause a 0.8% chance of developing gynecomastia, the growth of “female” breasts in boys.
Murray developed breasts as an adult and is now suing Johnson and Johnson for disfigurement and mental anguish.  He alleges that the company illegally promoted Risperdal for use with children in the 1990s and early 2000s.  He also claims that Risperdal should have had a warning in 2003 when he began taking the drug and that when J & J did add the warning in 2006, the company deliberately misrepresented the incidence of this side effect at 0.8%.  Murray claims that gynecomastia actually occurs in 4.5% of child users.
[Source:  http://www.drugwatch.com/2015/11/10/johnson-and-johnson-loses-risperdal-verdict/.   This is the third of more than 1500 Risperdal lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson.]

 

A Deadly Construction Accident
In July 2014, twenty-five year old Travis Joseph Miller, an employee of Miller’s Plumbing and Mechanical, Inc., died while working at a construction site for a 6-story residence on the Florida State University campus.   Miller had been sitting on a window ledge at the site when a temporary elevator being used for construction materials and workers fell and struck him.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated his death, concluding that the window opening lacked protective guards required by safety regulations, which exposed workers to the possibility of being struck and crushed by the elevator.  OSHA then issued “willful” citations to the general contractor Culpepper Construction Company, Miller’s employer Miller’s Plumbing and Mechanical, and two other contractors working on the residence hall, seeking nearly $150,000 in penalties.  OSHA defines willful violations as those that are “committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements.”   Miller’s family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Culpepper construction, his supervisors, and the Board of Trustees of Florida State University.
[Source: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Construction-Accident–268911551.html ]