Jury Selection. Ms. Thompson filed a suit in a federal district court against her employer, Altheimer & Gray, seeking damages for alleged racial discrimination in violation of federal law. During voir dire, the judge asked the prospective jurors whether

Question

"there is something about this kind of lawsuit for monetary damages that would start any of you leaning for or against a particular party?" Ms. Leiter, one of the prospective jurors, raised her hand and explained that she had "been an owner of a couple of businesses and am currently an owner of a business, and I feel that as an employer and owner of a business that will definitely sway my judgment in this case." She explained, "I am constantly faced with people that want various benefits or different positions in the company or better contacts or, you know, a myriad of issues that employers face on a regular basis, and I have to decide whether or not that person should get them." Asked by Thompson's lawyer whether "you believe that people file lawsuits just because they don't get something they want," Leiter answered, "I believe there are some people that do." In answer to another question, she said, "I think I bring a lot of background to this case, and I can't say that it's not going to cloud my judgment. I can try to be as fair as I can, as I do every day." Thompson filed a motion to strike Leiter for cause. Should the judge grant the motion? Explain.

Answer 1

Jury selection
The judge refused to strike Leiter for cause, and then collectively asked the jurors who were selected to hear the case, including Leiter, whether they would follow his instructions on the law even if they did not agree with them and whether they would be able to suspend judgment until they had heard all the evidence. All of them nodded their heads or said yes, and Leiter was allowed to remain. When the judge entered a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Altheimer & Gray, Thompson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the trial judge's failure to strike Leiter for cause was an abuse of discretion and a violation of Thompson's constitutional right to an impartial tribunal. The court explained that the trial judge should have pressed Leiter for "unwavering affirmations" of her ability to follow the law after she stated that her business background might cloud her judgment in hearing the case. This background, coupled with her belief that some people sue their employers because they do not get what they want, might have impeded her "in giving due weight to the evidence and following the judge's instructions." This question "was not adequately explored." In other words, the trial judge should have asked her individually "whether she would follow his instructions on the law and suspend judgment until she had heard all the evidence."