Opinion ID: 740289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Questions and Weinper's Answers

Text: 35 After soliciting proposed questions from counsel for all parties, the district judge asked a variety of questions to prospective jurors during voir dire. Among these questions was the following: 36 Now, have you, or to your knowledge, any members of your family, ever been involved in a civil or criminal case as either a party to that case or a witness to that case? Any of you ever been a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit, or called to testify as a witness at a trial of any kind, or a court hearing of any kind? If so, please raise your hand. 37 Weinper apparently raised his hand, because the district judge called on him after questioning two other prospective jurors. Weinper then disclosed that he had been the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a car accident. He told the court that the case was filed in California in 1988 and was resolved after a trial. 38 Next, the district judge asked the following: 39 Now, if not an actual lawsuit, have any members of the prospective jury, the 14 of you, or to your knowledge, members of your immediate family, ever made a claim for personal injury, maybe one which did not end up going to a lawsuit, but otherwise a claim for injuries you might have sustained? If so, would you raise your hand. 40 Weinper did not respond to this question. Later, because the case involved an alleged assault, the district judge asked the following series of questions: 41 Have any of you, or to your knowledge, any members of your family, ever been physically or sexually assaulted or molested? 42 Have any of you, or anyone you know, ever been accused of physical or sexual assault, or of sexual harassment, or have any of you, or anyone you know, ever made a claim regarding physical or sexual assault or sexual harassment against some other individual?Have any of you ever personally witnessed an incident involving a physical or sexual assault on another individual? 43 Again, Weinper did not respond. 44 At the evidentiary hearing on their motion for a new trial, Hilton established the following: 45 (1) In 1993, Weinper's mother obtained a temporary protective order against him due to domestic violence. 46 (2) In 1993, Weinper was convicted of cocaine possession and sentenced to six months probation. 47 (3) In 1992, Weinper filed a lawsuit against a taxicab driver and a taxicab company for injuries suffered when the driver allegedly stabbed him in an altercation. 48 (4) In 1992, Weinper pled guilty to a misdemeanor drug possession charge. He received a suspended sentence and probation. 49 (5) In 1991, Weinper pled guilty to a misdemeanor drug possession charge and was fined $250.00. 50 (6) In 1989, Weinper filed a civil lawsuit in Nevada alleging that another driver had rear-ended his automobile. 51 (7) In 1974, Weinper pled guilty to a drug possession charge in California. He received probation. 52 Relying on this evidence, Hilton contends Weinper was dishonest in responding to the district court's questions asking whether the prospective jurors had been a party or a witness in a civil or criminal case, whether any prospective juror had ever filed any claim for personal injury, and whether any prospective juror had ever been physically or sexually assaulted or been accused of physical or sexual assault. In addition to these failures, Hilton also contends the record shows that Weinper lied about other things during voir dire and during his testimony at the new trial evidentiary hearing. Without going into detail, these lies include the following: (1) misrepresentations about possession of a pilot's license and flight experience; (2) misrepresentations about home ownership; and (3) misrepresentations about ownership of a business. 53 During his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Weinper offered explanations for his failure to disclose completely his criminal and civil litigation history during voir dire. First, Weinper explained that he had not revealed to the court his criminal history because the question about lawsuits was twofold and it never crossed [his] mind to reveal his criminal history. In his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Weinper explained that I wasn't consciously thinking about criminal cases. Similarly, Weinper explained that he did not reveal his involvement in various domestic abuse cases or the taxicab altercation because he thought the question was directed at sexual assaults because of the nature of the case. Weinper also explained his failure to disclose his other automobile accident case by claiming that he thought the question only related to proceedings in which he had been a witness. [W]hat I was thinking about was testifying as a witness in a formal trial.... [M]entally it didn't register. Finally, Weinper explained that he failed to disclose the civil case arising out of the taxicab altercation because it never crossed [his] mind. 54 Although dubious of Weinper's explanations, the district judge ultimately concluded that these explanations were plausible and consistent. 55 Given Juror Weinper's explanation that he perceived the Court's questions as calling for responses to criminal and civil litigation in which he had testified at a formal hearing, his disclosure of the 1988 civil lawsuit is plausible and his omission of other cases consistent. Similarly, Weinper's testimony that he was focused during jury selection on the issue of sexual assault versus physical assault when answering the Court's voir dire questions is equally plausible given the nature of the case brought by Plaintiff Coughlin as it was outlined by the Court minutes earlier in the jury selection process. 56 This analysis led to the district court's ultimate conclusion: On balance, the Court finds that Juror Weinper misunderstood some of the Court's voir dire questions. The Court does not, however, find that Juror Weinper failed to honestly answer material questions on voir dire.