noting that this prejudice inquiry “focus[es] on the causal relationship between an erroneous denial, its effect upon the availability of allotted peremptory challenges, and how each of these factors influenced the ultimate composition of the jury in question.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that this prejudice inquiry “focus[es] on the causal relationship between an erroneous denial, its effect upon the availability of allotted peremptory challenges, and how each of these factors influenced the ultimate composition of the jury in question.”
- "upon a demonstration ... that a prospective juror fits one of the categories enumerated in [Mich.Ct.R.] 2.511(D)(4)-(13), a trial court is required to excuse such juror for cause"
- suit based on alleged negligence in prenatal treatment resulting in birth of baby with permanent brain damage
- “The very purpose of [peremptory challenges] is to provide an unrestricted opportunity to excuse any juror without assigning a reason.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brickley, J.
I have signed and concur in the opinion of Justice Archer, but wish to express an agreement with one aspect of the dissent of Chief Justice Riley. While I do not think it was the gravamen of the juror’s bias in this case, the practice of testing the jury on specific dollar amount damage awards is not a good practice and is certainly within the court’s discretion to avoid. As the Chief Justice points out, it not only might "pledge” the jury to a verdict to the unfair detriment of the defendant, but in situations where the juror bias is less evident than in this case, it might well create an appearance of bias against a high dollar verdict that is only a reaction to a high dollar figure that is heard prior to the introduction of any evidence or instruction on the law.