Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
During the voir dire of the jury, the judge asked the members of the venire whether 'there is something about this kind of lawsuit for money damages that would start any of you leaning for or against a particular party?' Leiter raised her hand and explained that she has 'been an owner of a couple of businesses and am currently an owner of a business, and I feel that as an employer and owner of a business that will definitely sway my judgment in this case.' The judge asked her whether 'if I instructed you as to what the law is that you would be able to apply the law recognizing that you are a business owner?' To which she replied, 'I think my experience will cloud my judgment, but I can do my best.' The judge permitted the lawyers also to ask questions of the prospective jurors, and P's lawyer asked Leiter, 'And you said earlier that you were concerned that your position as a business owner may cloud your judgment. Can you tell me how?' And she replied, 'I am constantly faced with people that want various benefits or different positions in the company [what Thompson was seeking from her employer, the defendant, Altheimer & Gray] or better contacts or, you know, a myriad of issues that employers face on a regular basis, and I have to decide whether or not that person should get them.' The lawyer then asked Leiter whether she was concerned 'that if somebody doesn't get them [benefits sought from their employer], they're going to sue you,' and she answered, 'Of course.' Asked then whether 'you believe that people file lawsuits just because they don't get something they want?', she answered, 'I believe there are some people that do.' In answer to the next and last question, 'Are you concerned that that might cloud your judgment in this case?' she said, 'I think I bring a lot of background to this case, and I can't say that it's not going to cloud my judgment. I can try to be as fair as I can, as I do every day.' The trial judge refused to strike Leiter for cause. D then exercised its three peremptory challenges, none overlapping with P's, and the judge asked the eight remaining jurors, that is, the jurors selected to hear the case, whether they would follow his instructions on the law even if they didn't agree with them and whether they would be able to suspend judgment until they had heard all the evidence. The question was asked to the jurors at large, and all either nodded their heads or said yes. D made no objection to Leiter's failure at this stage to
reiterate her doubts about her ability to exercise an unclouded judgment. D contends that Leiter need not be struck for cause. P lost the case and now appeals based on the failure of Leiter to be struck for cause.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co