Mar 15

final-jur-e headline

Appellate Panel Approves Jury's Power to Scrutinize Corp. Timing of Product Development

Bloomberg Law reports that a recent ruling by a California state appellate court will give juries the power to determine how quickly corporations must develop a new, superior product. In Gilead Life Sciences, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco, a class of 24,000 consumers using TDF, a medication to treat HIV/AIDS manufactured by Gilead, sued the company on the basis that it was negligent in not taking a superior product to the market sooner. Notably, the plaintiffs did not allege that the product was defective in any way. They pointed to injuries incurred from TDF’s side effects (which had been disclosed to them) as damages. The court sided with the plaintiffs. The article’s author, George Priest, observes that the case means juries could now “be asked to review the development history of an alleged subsequent superior product and decide whether the experts manufacturing the product were negligent in not developing and selling the product earlier.”

Kentucky Senate Debates Jury Service After Age 70

88.9 WEKU reports the Kentucky Senate passed legislation that would allow Kentuckians who are 70 years or older to permanently opt out of jury duty. Some legislators, however, are concerned about the potential impact the bill may have on jury pools. State Senator Robin Webb stated that her worry is that a large number of citizens over 70 will opt out and that they often make very good jurors. Another state senator, Adrienne Southworth, added that losing these jurors could impact getting a jury of peers.

Court Grants New Trial After $6.4M Verdict Based on Faulty Jury Instruction

Law.com reports that the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned a $6.4 million judgment awarded to a welder injured on the job. The appeals court found that the defendant should be granted a new trial because one of the jury instructions omitted key information about the case. The appeals court ruled, “The jury charge completely omitted any instruction on the issue on which [the defendant] sought an instruction, whether retention of some authority over safety and enforcement of safety requirements can constitute the kind of retention of control sufficient to find liability.” Further, in the absence of any instruction on this issue, “the jury charge was misleading and inaccurate, as it instructed that any control over the manner … was sufficient for liability.”

Right to Impartial Jury Not Infringed by Jurors Raising Hands to Answer Yes-or-No Questions During Voir Dire

In United States of America v. Johnny Ho, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that Johnny Ho’s right to an impartial jury was not infringed by how the magistrate judge conducted voir dire. At trial, the judge instructed the venire that she would ask them questions collectively. If they had a response to one of her questions, they were to raise their hands. After a series of questions, Ho’s counsel requested that each prospective juror be required to verbally respond “yes” or “no.” The judge declined. On appeal, Ho claimed that this method of conducting voir dire violated his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because it prevented him from effectively exercising his peremptory challenges. Further, without being required to answer “yes” or “no,” Ho asserted that the jurors could avoid “answering the question.” The panel rejected Ho’s argument, finding that “all of [the jurors did] not hesitate to raise their hand to any question that [the court] had posed,” and that the judge had not abused her discretion in conducting voir dire this way.