Would you feel comfortable if a juror hearing your medical malpractice case was the personal banker for the doctor defendant? My client and I didn’t.
Would you feel comfortable if a juror hearing your medical malpractice case were the personal banker for the doctor defendant? My client and I didn’t.
I worry that too many obvious prejudices are permitted to lurk in the back of the minds of many jurors because the courts are, at times, blind to their reality and depth.
This week an appellate court ruled that a New Jersey trial court judge in a PPA injury trial did not err in finding that a juror who was a former employee of defendant Novartis Consumer Health Inc. was able to render a fair and impartial verdict. I am sure it would be possible that an ex-employee of a defendant could totally divorce himself from his feelings and experiences (good or bad). But, I am also quite sure that the same juror may not even appreciate in the front of his mind what the back of his mind was up to.
Why should any litigant have to even question a juror who is the personal banker of the defendant doctor or the former employee of the defendant drug manufacturer? Can’t we just move on to a potential juror who has less obvious baggage.
The Legal Examiner and our Affiliate Network strive to be the place you look to for news, context, and more, wherever your life intersects with the law.