Motion for a New Trial. Ms. Hummel sued Dr. James Strittmatter and his professional corporation, the Gainesville Radiology Group, P.C. ("the Group"), for medical malpractice. Hummel alleged that the Group was negligent in failing to timely diagnose her

Question

breast cancer after a mammogram examination. During voir dire, jurors were asked if any of them had family members who had been diagnosed with breast cancer or other forms of cancer, how the cancer had been diagnosed, and whether there had been any recurrence. One juror made no response, but it was later discovered that the juror's wife had died of breast cancer some years before. When the trial court jury returned a verdict for the Group, Hummel moved for a new trial on the ground that the juror had violated his oath and failed to disclose pertinent information during voir dire. In opposing the motion, the Group submitted an affidavit signed by the juror in which the juror averred that he had not answered the question because he had not heard it and that the cause of his wife's death had not influenced his judgment in the case. Did the juror's failure to hear the question about cancer constitute juror misconduct to the extent that Hummel's motion for a new trial should be granted?

Answer 1

Motion for a new trial
The state trial court denied the motion, holding that the juror's "inadvertent" failure to respond to a question during voir dire did not "rise to the level of juror misconduct which would require the grant of a new trial." Hummel appealed. The state intermediate appellate court held that the juror's failure to hear the question violated the juror's duty to be attentive during voir dire proceedings. The trial court's decision was thus reversed. The appellate court stressed how important it was for jurors to respond truthfully to questions asked of them during voir dire. If a litigant cannot depend on jurors to answer questions truthfully, "then he cannot be certain he is getting a fair, just and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Constitution." The court went on to state that it is just as important for jurors to tell the truth as it is for trial witnesses to tell the truth and that a "failure to respond is tantamount to giving an untruthful answer." Noting that the voir dire questions regarding cancer filled sixteen pages of the trial transcript, the court con-cluded that "in view of all the conversation that transpired between counsel and the other jurors" on the issue of cancer, the juror's claim not to have heard the question "amounts to an admission that he was grossly inattentive to the whole voir dire process."