Case Name/Case # Metropolita
OB/GYN
Tarajee King 518-790
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Ronald U. Shaw, Esq. 410-823-9400
Associates, LLC v. Medical Malpractice
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Robert E. Kershaw Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues
In this obstetrical medical-malpractice case, the jury sent multiple notes indicating that they were hopelessly deadlocked unless a juror was permitted to be swayed by “ex- haustion, coercion and a need to get back to work.” The jury also wrote that this juror would only be swayed by “increased pressure, time + exhaustion + not the evidence presented.” The jury was allowed to continue to deliberate, and after a significant period of time, returned a significant verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. When the Defense insisted on polling the jury, a particular juror when asked if he agreed with the verdict did not respond. The juror was then told to please answer “yes or no.” The juror began to answer, “Yes based on…” at which point the clerk interrupted and asked “Yes or no?” and the juror said “Yes.” On appeal, the appellants asked whether a mistrial should have been declared given the apparent deadlock, and the extraneous forces that the jurors wrote may have influenced their decision. In addition, the appellants raise the ambiguous answer to the jury poll as grounds for a new trial.
Ethel Hill v.
Mark Walrath 519-219
Dwight Pettit, Esq. 410-542-5400
Police Misconduct/ Trial Procedure
Lynn K. Stewart Circuit Court for Baltimore City
This is a police misconduct case in which a note was received from the jury suggesting that a juror had had prior contact with police which was causing the juror to act in an alleg- edly biased manner during deliberations. Prior to polling the juror, the judge asked both Defense and Plaintiff ’s counsel if they would consent to proceeding with five jurors if necessary − both consented. The juror was then polled, and during the polling, it became clear that the juror was the one holdout for the Plaintiff and that the juror had not responded to voir dire questions to which the juror should have responded. The Judge dismissed the juror, and was prepared to continue deliberations with five jurors at which time the Plaintiff moved for a mistrial. That motion was denied. The jurors deliberated, and in 10 minutes, returned a defense verdict. The issue on appeal is whether, in the unique procedural circumstances of this case, it was error to deny the Plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial.
Summer 2008
Trial Reporter
67
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76