Are Juries More Likely to Award Higher Damages to Deceased Plaintiffs?
According to Law.com ($$), Georgia jurors award higher verdicts to deceased plaintiffs than surviving plaintiffs. Between February and October of this year, Georgia juries awarded eightfigure and higher verdicts to the estates of deceased plaintiffs. In contrast, surviving plaintiffs only received seven-figure outcomes. However, some believe that it may be too soon to draw any conclusions. While the sample size was only 18 verdicts, the outcomes may offer some insight into juror decision-making. Of the verdicts, 12 were delivered to plaintiffs who had been injured in a medical-malpractice, personal-injury, or premises-liability accident but had survived. The other 6 went to the estates or surviving families of the deceased. While the 12 awarded to the living plaintiffs totaled around $140 million, the 6 awarded to the decedents amounted to $195 million. Decatur County attorney Denise de La Rue observed that one difference between the amounts may be because for living plaintiffs, there are “categories of damages” that do not exist for deceased plaintiffs. Ms. de La Rue explains, “If someone is catastrophically injured . . . they’re going to have a life care plan that’s going to show what their needs are for the rest of their lives.” Additionally, she suggests that when assessing the value of a decedent’s life, jurors may go beyond considering just their lost opportunities and include considerations of their surviving children, especially minors.
Indiana Supreme Court Jury Trial Entitlement in Property Forfeiture Cases
The Washington Post reports that the high court ruled a jury should decide whether property associated with a crime should be seized by the state. Justice Christopher Goff wrote, “We hold that a claimant in an action brought under Indiana’s civil forfeiture statute has a constitutional right to trial by jury.” The holding comes from a case involving Alucious Kizer, who was convicted of drug dealing and initially sought a jury trial to determine whether the cash recovered by law enforcement during his arrest should be forfeited. Mr. Kizer’s attorney, Sam Gedge, commented, “The right to a trial by jury of our peers is core to our system of justice. And for centuries, courts across the nation have confirmed the obvious: When the government sues to forfeit your property, you’re entitled to make your case to a jury.”
Judge Orders Anonymous Jury in Trump Defamation Trial
ABC News reports that a federal New York judge has ruled that the jury in the defamation case brought against former president Donald Trump will be anonymous, due to Mr. Trump’s “repeated public statements” regarding the plaintiff and the court in this case. Judge Lewis Kaplan also pointed to the extensive media coverage surrounding the suit as a reason why the jurors’ identities will not be disclosed. The upcoming trial stems from a defamation suit filed by E. Jean Carroll following remarks made by the former president after she wrote in her memoir that he had attacked her in a department store. Back in May, another anonymous jury found that Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll during the department store incident. The pending suit was amended to include additional comments made by Trump after the May verdict. Judge Kaplan has ruled that Ms. Carroll’s lawyers will not have to show to the new jury that the former president attacked her. Rather, they will only be deciding whether he should have to pay damages for his comments.
Virginia Court Finds Defendant Not Entitled to New Trial Where Juror Lied About Residency
In Clark v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Court of Appeals, Richmond, found that because Thomas Clark failed to show that a juror who lied about his residence during voir dire harbored actual bias, his right to a trial by an impartial jury was not violated. Further, the appellate court declined to answer whether Clark had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to be tried by a jury “of the State and District in which the crime was committed” (known as the vicinage clause) because he had failed to provide any authority that the vicinage clause applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Clark was convicted of first-degree murder, rape, and abduction with intent to defile. Before sentencing, the trial court discovered that one of the jurors was not a resident of the City of Richmond. The juror was issued a show cause. At the show-cause hearing, he admitted that he previously resided in Richmond but had since moved to Henrico County and was residing there during Clark’s trial. On appeal, the court held that Clark failed to establish that the juror held an actual bias against him, noting that the trial court found the juror’s motive for lying was to “get paid” for jury service. Additionally, the court did not consider Clark’s Sixth Amendment claim because he did not provide either a standard of review or principles of law and relevant rules of authority as required under Virginia Rule 5A:20(e).