Opinion ID: 3009957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenge for Cause of Jurors

Text: Owens-Corning argues that the district court erred in refusing to strike for cause two prospective jurors (juror # 251 and juror # 45) who defendant argues revealed considerable potential bias against it during voir dire. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision regarding a motion to dismiss a juror for cause. United States v. Polan, 970 F.2d 1280, 1284 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 113 S. Ct. 1367 (1993) (citing United States v. Salamone, 800 F.2d 1216, 1226 (3d Cir. 1986) (the factual determination by the district court whether a juror can serve impartially is entitled to special deference when reviewed on appeal)). Because the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility and demeanor of the prospective jurors, district courts have been awarded ample discretion in determining how best to conduct the voir dire. Waldorf v. Shuta, 3 F.3d 705, 710 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189, 101 S. Ct. 1629, 1635 (1991)). In determining whether a particular juror should be excused for cause, our main concern is whether the juror holds a particular belief or opinion that will `prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.' Salamone, 800 F.2d at 1226 (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S. Ct. 844, 852 (1985)). A juror is impartial if he or she can lay aside any previously formed `impression or opinion as to the merits of the case' and can `render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.' Polan, 970 F.2d at 1284 (citing Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 1643 (1961)). However, the district court should not rely simply on the jurors' subjective assessments of their own impartiality. See Waldorf, 3 F.3d at 710 (district court relied too heavily on jurors' assurances of impartiality); see also Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 139 (3d Cir. 1987) (though a juror swears that he could set aside any opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence, a juror's protestation of impartiality should not be credited if other facts of record indicate to the contrary). Owens-Corning argues that prospective juror # 251 should have been struck for cause because he worked with asbestos-containing products for many years and indicated during voir dire that he was leaning in favor of the plaintiff. Kirk argues that this prospective juror was properly placed on the jury because when questioned by both the district court and counsel whether he could render a fair and impartial verdict, the prospective juror responded in the affirmative. We are troubled by the fact that a district judge, despite assurances of impartiality, allowed a prospective juror to serve in a mesothelioma case when the juror's background raised serious questions as to his ability to serve impartially.3 3 . Relevant portions of the voir dire of prospective juror # 251 are as follows: Juror 251: Well, two uncles had cancer, they were mechanics. Our union did a study on their members. I am a mechanic, and it was like 97 percent of them tested had some problem with asbestos. I have eaten a lot of it over the years brakes, clutches up until gets in the air hose, blows it out, you spit black dirt for two days. . . . . Mr. Kristal (counsel for Kirk): Do you think that will affect your ability to listen to the evidence and be fair to both sides in this case? Juror 251: Well I could only try to be fair is all I could say. I guess in a way I got to be a little one way, I'm probably high on the priority list myself. I've been a mechanic since 1957, up until when they stopped using it, you know, you took a (..continued) clutch out of a truck, hit it with the air hose and the whole shop is black. . . . . Mr. Kristal: If I didn't prove my case, or show that Mr. Kirk didn't have asbestos disease or I was unable to show Owens-Corning Fiberglas was liable, would you be able to return a verdict against my client? Juror 251: I wouldn't have any problems at all. Mr. Kristal: [I]f I had proven the case, would you be able to find in favor of my client? Juror 251: I might lean the other way because I have been there. I know a lot of members who have been down that road, you know. Mr. Kristal: Can you put [your past experience with asbestos] behind you and decide this case on what you hear in the courtroom from the witness stand and follow the Court's instructions? Juror 251: I believe I could. Mr. Hewitt (counsel for Owens-Corning): Your two uncles had cancer? Juror 251: Yes. Mr. Hewitt: Do you believe those cancers were related to asbestos? Juror 251: I don't know. They both had lung cancer. Mr. Hewitt: Were they around asbestos? Juror 251: Mechanics the same as I am, both smoke, so it's anybody's guess. App. 68-70. The Court: He thinks he has asbestos coursing through his system. . . . . (..continued) The Court: I just want to clarify in my own mind, you have been exposed to the brake linings and flakes from brake linings? Juror 251: Yes. The Court: For many years now? Juror 251: Yes, sir. The Court: And you think that probably asbestos fibers made their way in through your own system because when you had the air hose -- Juror 251: You see our Local, I am a member of the Local, and when all this asbestos problem came out, the Union started testing some of the older members. It was like they finally knocked it off like 97 percent of the people tested, tested positive for asbestos. And back then, we didn't know nothing about it. You took brakes off the truck, took the air hose blew it off, disk, clutch, all asbestos, and I said yesterday, I probably had eaten a couple of pounds of it, and I have never been tested for it, but I have been subject to it. The Court: If you are on this case you would be deciding certain questions, concerning somebody who died of asbestos exposure, how much money to award. Do you think because of your own personal experience perhaps to a certain extent because of your uncles, you are not sure of the cause of the death, whether cigarettes or something to do with asbestos, do you think you could be fair or would you be inclined -- Juror 251: Like I said, most of what I seen has been against it. I would have to sit and listen to the case. If the one attorney can prove that it wasn't, I could handle that. But at this point right now I only know the one side of it. The Court: The way it's going to be, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, not the defendant. And do you think you could decide the case fairly or do you think because of your own personal experiences you would be sort of caught up in it and tend to favor the plaintiff? Specifically, we note the following facts which raise substantial questions of the potential bias of juror #251: (1) during the course of his work history he had probably eaten a couple of pounds of [asbestos]; (2) he was a union shop steward for 35 years and received one-sided literature from the union regarding asbestos; (3) he believed that 97% of the older workers in his local union had tested positive for asbestos in their system; (4) he had two uncles who died of lung cancer and although they were cigarette smokers, they had been exposed to asbestos during the (..continued) Juror 251: I think I could do it fairly. I have been a shop steward for 35 years. Lots of time I have to go against the company. That didn't sit too well but I think I could sit and listen to the facts. . . . . Juror 251: I think I could weed through it. Most of the information I have has been from the side of the Union coming with the asbestos. And really, it's a one-sided argument. . . . . Mr. Hewitt: I think you indicated earlier that you would lean a little -- Juror 251: Well, at this point I would have to be [a] liar if I said to you -- the facts that I had lean in favor of the possibility or the possibility of it happening. I haven't really had any, a lot of facts thrown to me, where it is not, and like I said, I would have to hear what they have to say, and determine from that. I just can't crystal- ball, say this gentleman is going to convince me that the client, his client did die from it. I just have to listen to the facts, and just understand all the facts that I had about it have been the negative, from your standpoint, so I would have to weed out one or the other. App. at 76-79. course of their work lives; (5) he admitted in the first instance that he was leaning in favor of the plaintiff and against the asbestos company; (6) he believed that he was probably high on the priority list of getting an asbestos-related disease himself; and (7) he knew a lot of [union] members who presumably had asbestos-related medical problems. Owens-Corning next argues that prospective juror # 45 should have been struck for cause because he had responded to the jury questionnaire that he could not be fair and later repeated at voir dire that he would have a difficult time being fair to the defendant. Kirk counters by pointing out that when further questioned by the district court as to whether he could render a fair and impartial verdict, the prospective juror responded in the affirmative.4 Again, we are troubled because the second 4 . Relevant portions of the voir dire are as follows: The Court: In this case, sir, if you are on this jury can you well and truly try the case based on the evidence as it comes forth from the witness stand and not, with all respects [sic] to the media, based on TV, or radio or newspapers and all of that? Do you think you could do that, sir? Juror 45: Yes, I believe so, because it's possible it could be slanted one way or the other. . . . . The Court: So you answered that you could not be fair to companies that made, distributed, supplied and/or installed asbestos-containing products, what do you mean by that? Juror 45: Basically I feel it's sort of immoral to knowingly produce something you know is going to cause a problem. prospective juror: (1) stated in the jury questionnaire that he could not be fair to companies that made, distributed, supplied and/or installed asbestos-containing products; (2) felt it was immoral to produce asbestos if the company knew it was going to cause a problem; and (3) indicated that he could not be fair to (..continued) The Court: Do you think it's immoral -- I am not saying this is the case -- to produce something when they don't know anything is wrong with it, they don't know but it turns out later there is something wrong with it? Juror 45: I feel if they do find out it should be corrected. . . . . The Court: [D]o you think you could be fair? Juror 45: Yes. Mr. Hewitt: One question, if the evidence is that Owens Corning knew that asbestos was hazardous would you have a tough time giving them a fair shake? Juror 45: Yes, I would. The Court: What do you mean by giving them a fair shake? Would you have a tough time coming up with a verdict in their favor if you know the [sic] under the evidence and the law they are liable? Juror 45: Well -- The Court: I would tell you if it comes in, if the evidence and the law did not demonstrate that the plaintiff proved their [sic] case, I am not saying that is not being fair to the defendant, you are being fair, just as you would be fair to the plaintiff if after fairly considering the evidence you find there's not a case made out, you would nevertheless find against her, you are abiding by your oath as a juror. Juror 45: Whatever you say, yes. App. at 64-66. the defendant if the evidence indicated that Owens-Corning knew that asbestos was hazardous. Only after being repeatedly asked if he could be fair, the juror answered, Whatever you say, yes. Recently, we had the opportunity to decide a similar case involving a challenge to a district court's refusal to remove several jurors for cause. Polan, 970 F.2d at 1284. In that case, which involved a prosecution for conspiracy to distribute and the distribution of illegally prescribed drugs, counsel for the defendant challenged for cause three prospective jurors who revealed during voir dire that either they or members of their families were victims of drug abuse. Id. Juror #1 revealed that one of his brothers had died of a drug overdose and another brother had served a lengthy prison term for drug offenses. Id. n.2. Juror # 2 indicated that she had become dependent upon tranquilizers after experiencing a family tragedy. Id. Juror # 3 revealed that his son had abused alcohol and drugs in the past. Id. However, all three prospective jurors ultimately assured the court that their past experiences would not affect their decision making and that they would be fair and impartial. After reviewing the record of the voir dire, we concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike those prospective jurors. Polan, 970 F.2d at 1284. We find that Polan is distinguishable from the case before us. In Polan, the defendant wanted the prospective jurors removed presumably because he believed that some of their past experiences would make them more likely to vote for conviction. With regard to juror # 1, we gave little weight to the theory that an individual whose one brother died of a drug overdose and whose other brother served a prison sentence for drug offenses would be more likely to convict a criminal defendant charged with drug distribution. With regard to juror # 2, we were not convinced that a person who became dependent on sedatives after the shock of a family tragedy would be more likely to convict an individual accused of distributing drugs. Finally, with regard to juror # 3, we gave little credence to the notion that a father who endured his son's alcohol and drug problems would be biased in favor of the prosecution. Thus, when the district court in Polan credited the assurances of the three prospective jurors, it implicitly made two findings: (1) that the jurors were telling the truth and (2) despite the experiences and personal biases of the jurors, they could be fair and impartial, precisely because their past experiences and personal biases did not make them more likely to convict the defendant. Here, Owens-Corning objected to jurors # 251 and # 45 being seated on the jury because it believed that their personal biases regarding asbestos and asbestos companies would make them more likely to return a finding of liability and a large damage award against Owens-Corning. Unlike the defendant in Polan, Owens-Corning's fear, that the prospective witnesses' past experiences and personal biases would affect their decision, was well-founded. Juror # 251 inhaled a considerable amount of asbestos, knew people who were suffering from asbestos-related diseases, and thought himself likely to succumb to some asbestos-related disease in the future. Thus, there was good reason to conclude that he would be more likely to return a large damage award because he sympathized with the plaintiff. See Gumbs v. Pueblo International, Inc., 823 F.2d 768, 773 (3d Cir. 1987) ([A] jur[or] may not abandon analysis for sympathy for a suffering plaintiff and treat an injury as though it were a winning lottery ticket.). It is difficult to conceive of a juror who would be more partial to this plaintiff than juror # 251. Because juror # 251's background is replete with circumstances which would call into question his ability to be fair to an asbestos manufacturer, we find that it was improper to allow him to serve on the jury. Juror # 45 stated that he was biased against asbestos companies and felt it was immoral knowingly to produce harmful and defective products. The danger existed that this juror would return a verdict of liability against Owens-Corning even if Owens-Corning's products were not responsible for the decedent's injuries. We can think of few admissions more compelling in asbestos litigation than a prospective juror who acknowledges that he would have moral qualms about being fair to an asbestos manufacturer. We conclude that juror # 45 and especially juror # 251 could not serve fairly and impartially in light of their past experiences and personal biases. The district court relied too heavily on the jurors' assurances of impartiality, and therefore abused its discretion. A district court's refusal to excuse a juror will not automatically be upheld simply because the district court ultimately elicits from the prospective juror that he will be fair and impartial, despite earlier statements or circumstances to the contrary. The application of Owens-Corning to dismiss these two jurors for cause should have been granted. The jury was not fairly and impartially constituted, and accordingly we will order a new trial.