# Woolley v. Henderson

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · August 28, 1980 · 418 A.2d 1123

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712833

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda E. WOOLLEY and Brandon Woolley v. Lester K. HENDERSON
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** August 28, 1980
- **Citations:** 418 A.2d 1123; 1980 Me. LEXIS 645
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Glassman, Wernick, Godfrey, Glass-Man, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712833

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting the fiduciary character of the physician- patient relationship

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the disposition of each of the issues discussed in the court’s opinion. On the question of the voir dire examination, I express my views separately because of an important difference in emphasis. That the conduct of voir dire rests in the sound discretion of the presiding justice means that he may elect any of several options without committing error. I would not find error in the justice’s failure to remove excused jurors from the courtroom where some prejudice may incidentally result. In this instance, however, the danger of prejudice was eminently foreseeable.
The record indicates that counsel had previously discussed their requested voir dire questions with the presiding justice. Plaintiffs’ request for removal of the excused jurors was made in the light of those questions and the apparent potential that they would elicit prejudicial responses. Thus plaintiffs said, “If they [excused jurors] remain and are asked the remaining questions we are running a very substantial risk of a mistrial.” Defense counsel objected to plaintiffs’ request even though he was in a position to know the nature of the responses those very jurors might give. If he did know, he was under no duty to his client to seek an unfair tactical advantage.
For the reason that a sound exercise of discretion requires that foreseeable prejudice be avoided, I concur in vacating the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712833. Public record. Not legal advice.