Juror at center of SCOTUS case contests plaintiff's version of events
A pending Supreme Court case seeking a new trial based on a juror’s alleged statements is apparently a surprise to the juror at the center of the case.
The issue in Warger v. Schauers is whether a motorcycle rider who lost his leg in an accident with a truck can get a new trial based on a juror’s statements in deliberations, the New York Times reports. The juror, who was elected foreperson, allegedly revealed during deliberations that her daughter had been at fault in a similar case and a lawsuit would have “ruined her life.” The federal jury found for the truck driver.
The issue came to light when another juror approached the lawyer for the plaintiff motorcycle rider and said his judgment was clouded by the foreperson’s revelations.
The plaintiff, a South Dakota man, had claimed the Federal Rules of Evidence allowed him to seek a new trial based on a claim that the statement in deliberations showed juror dishonesty during voir dire. The evidence rule at issue generally bars testimony from jurors “during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict” with a few exceptions. One allows testimony about extraneous prejudicial information that was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, and another allows testimony about any outside influence brought to bear on any juror.
The Times called the jury foreperson, a retired elementary school teacher, and she sounded surprised to be at the center of the case, the story says. She said the other juror, who signed a sworn statement, got it wrong. The foreperson said her daughter never had any accident, and the jury considered only the facts. Jurors felt the plaintiff “was a little reckless and careless in riding in such heavy traffic,” she said.
