![]() ![]() She “had a problem” with “large damage awards” and “awarding a large verdict,” and with holding an employer liable for its employees’ acts. He believes the testimony of a police officer “carries a little more weight” than that of a lay person and he would give it “greater credence.” Slater v. One side must overcome a pre-conceived opinion in order to prevail. He would try to keep an open mind, but says that his “beliefs” about damage awards would “probably interfere with his obligations as a juror,” in medical malpractice case because he is definitely of the opinion that damage awards need to be capped. And she is not 100% sure her bias would not affect her verdict (but she would try). She “guesses” her feelings against medical malpractice cases would “probably” stay with her during the trial. She has a “tiny bit” of prejudice in favor or the defendant doctor. He expressed “ distaste for lawyers,” suggested that he would hold plaintiff to a “clear and obvious” standard of proof, and indicated that plaintiffs in general were “looking for easy money” and “trying to cheat the system” to “make an easy buck,” and that plaintiff would have to “overcome a resistance” on his part if he served as juror. Specific examples of jurors who should have been excused for cause:Ī. ![]() ![]() “Conflicting Statements” by juror certainly create a reasonable doubt. Close cases involving challenges to the impartiality of potential jurors should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror rather than leaving doubt as to impartiality. 5th DCA 2005) “It is now well-established that if there is a reasonable doubt about the juror’s impartiality, the juror should be dismissed for cause. In Florida, a juror should be excused if there is any reasonable doubt as to the juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict, and if it is a close call, the juror should be excused. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |