Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
JUROR
HONESTY
SM JUROR presents our analysis of:
Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, 83 N.E.3d ...
Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc.,
2017-Ohio-363, 83 N.E.3d 247.
Copyright 2017 – SM JUROR. All rights reserved.
www.smjuror.com
This presentation is brought to you by Nilgün Aykent Zahour, Esq.
Nilgün Aykent Zahour is the President and Founding Attor...
Facts:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc.
In this auto accident case, the trial was bifurcated into
compensatory and punitive...
Requirements for obtaining a new trial based on a juror’s
nondisclosure of information during voir dire:
Copyright 2017 - ...
Generally, the appellate court cannot substitute its judgment
for that of the trial court:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc....
Holding:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc.
“Under the particular circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the trial
co...
Like what you see? Want more?
to sign up for our free SM JUROR newsletter, filled
with information about new juror miscond...
We want to connect with you. Connect with SM JUROR by
clicking on your favorite social media networks below:
The phones ab...
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

von

Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 1 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 2 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 3 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 4 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 5 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 6 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 7 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 8 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 9 Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness Slide 10
Nächste SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Weiter
Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen und im Vollbildmodus anzuzeigen.

2 Gefällt mir

Teilen

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

Nilgün Aykent Zahour and SM JUROR analyze the case of Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, 83 N.E.3d 247, where the defendant moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The issue was whether the juror failed to honestly answer a material question during voir dire, or honestly failed to hear the name of a witness who would be called at trial.
#JurorMisconduct

Ähnliche Bücher

Kostenlos mit einer 30-tägigen Testversion von Scribd

Alle anzeigen

Juror honesty during voir dire: The failure to answer honestly versus the failure to honestly hear the name of a witness

  1. 1. JUROR HONESTY SM JUROR presents our analysis of: Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, 83 N.E.3d 247. During voir dire, did the juror fail to hear the name of a witness to be called at trial or did she fail to honestly answer a question?
  2. 2. Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, 83 N.E.3d 247.
  3. 3. Copyright 2017 – SM JUROR. All rights reserved. www.smjuror.com
  4. 4. This presentation is brought to you by Nilgün Aykent Zahour, Esq. Nilgün Aykent Zahour is the President and Founding Attorney of SM JUROR. With over twenty-eight years of litigation experience, her passion is to help attorneys identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct issues at trial and on appeal in this constantly evolving area of the law. Don’t let juror misconduct taint your verdict, especially when a juror uses social media or the internet. You can view Nilgün’s education and background on the SM JUROR website by clicking here and also click/view her LinkedIn profile. Click on her latest article “The Verdict is In: Juries, Misconduct and Social Media”. Because the only evidence you want the jury to consider … is in the courtroom. Use SM JUROR. LINKS ARE CLICKABLE ON PC DESKTOPS AND SOME MOBILE PHONES
  5. 5. Facts: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc. In this auto accident case, the trial was bifurcated into compensatory and punitive damages phases. A list of all potential witnesses was read to the jury at the beginning of the trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the compensatory damages phase. When the punitive damages phase began, a witness took the stand and a juror realized she knew him and immediately informed the trial court. The court then held a meeting with the juror, and the juror said she did not hear the name of the witness when it was read before trial. The juror was dismissed pursuant to plaintiff's request. The jury then found in favor of the defendants in the punitive damages phase. Plaintiff's motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was denied.
  6. 6. Requirements for obtaining a new trial based on a juror’s nondisclosure of information during voir dire: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc. “To obtain a new trial in a case in which a juror has not disclosed information during voir dire, the moving party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and that the moving party was prejudiced by the presence on the trial jury of a juror who failed to disclose material information.” Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, ¶57. “To demonstrate prejudice, the moving party must show that an accurate response from the juror would have provided a valid basis for a for-cause challenge.” Id.
  7. 7. Generally, the appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial court: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc. “In determining whether a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and whether that nondisclosure provided a basis for a for-cause challenge, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for the trial court's judgment unless it appears that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio- 363, ¶57. NO SUBSTITUTION ALLOWED, unless … APPELLATE COURT OPINION
  8. 8. Holding: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc. “Under the particular circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the trial court's decision to deny the Wiegands' motion for a new trial based upon juror misconduct was an abuse of discretion. Here, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that the juror did not fail to honestly answer the question, but rather simply did not hear the name of the witness mentioned or did not make the connection in her mind at that time that she knew him.” Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, ¶61. Each attorney read a list of their potential witnesses to the jury with pause. The juror stated she did not hear the name of the witness who was going to testify during the punitive phase of the trial. He did not testify during the compensatory phase. Her first encounter with the witness was when he was called to testify during the punitive phase, and the juror immediately informed the court that she knew him.
  9. 9. Like what you see? Want more? to sign up for our free SM JUROR newsletter, filled with information about new juror misconduct cases, short webinars, or other helpful resources to help you identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct cases at trial and on appeal. Click here This is a clickable link Links are clickable on PC desktops and some mobile phones
  10. 10. We want to connect with you. Connect with SM JUROR by clicking on your favorite social media networks below: The phones above are clickable links on PC desktops and some mobile phones
  • ChristineWaters7

    Dec. 4, 2021
  • NilgnAykentZahour

    Oct. 31, 2017

Nilgün Aykent Zahour and SM JUROR analyze the case of Wiegand v. Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 2017-Ohio-363, 83 N.E.3d 247, where the defendant moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The issue was whether the juror failed to honestly answer a material question during voir dire, or honestly failed to hear the name of a witness who would be called at trial. #JurorMisconduct

Aufrufe

Aufrufe insgesamt

818

Auf Slideshare

0

Aus Einbettungen

0

Anzahl der Einbettungen

56

Befehle

Downloads

0

Geteilt

0

Kommentare

0

Likes

2

×