Opinion ID: 1857396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Joan Curtis

Text: During voir dire examination of the prospective jurors, an attorney for the Nixes asked the following question: Let me read you some of the lawyers in [the law firm of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus, and Tanner] and see if these people ring a bell with you: Vincent McAlister, if any of you know or have you been represented by him please let me know or any member of your immediate family, to your knowledge, been represented by these lawyers: Vincent McAlister, Steve Baccus.... Later in voir dire, the following questions were asked: Have any of you ever been a defendant in a lawsuit, that is, the person against whom suit is brought for personal injury or property damage or money damages? ... What about members of your family? Have any of them ever been sued or claimed against for personal injury or property damage to your knowledge? Juror Joan Curtis did not respond to either question. However, after trial, it was discovered that in 1993 her brother, John Wayne Thompson, had been represented by Steve Baccus, a member of the law firm that represented one of the defendants in this case. In the hearing on the Nixes' motion for new trial, Curtis stated that she speaks with her brother approximately every three months and that they regularly see each other during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. She testified that she had not known that he had been represented by Steven Baccus and that she had little knowledge about an accident that had led to Baccus's representation of Thompson. Curtis's pertinent testimony at the hearing on the Nixes' motion for new trial was as follows: Q. Now, you, of course, know about the traffic accident resulting in a death that was the subject matter of litigation, don't you? A. I know of it. I don't know any details or nothing. Q. Did you read about it in the paper? A. No, sir. Q. How did you know about it? A. Just from hearing about it. Q. Did you discuss it with your brother? A. I did not. . . . . A. Never has he mentioned it to me, never. Q. Of course, you knew that your brother was a named defendant in that lawsuit, didn't you? A. I did not know that. Q. Are you testifying under oath, Ms. Curtis, that you did not know he had been sued? A. Right. I just knew he was involved, but I didn't know the charges or nothing about it. . . . . A. [I knew he was involved] [b]ecause he was at work that day it happened. . . . . A. I just heard about it. Not through him, I just heard about it. . . . . Q. Are you testifying under oath that you knew that your brother was involved in an accidentsomebody told you that he was involved in an accident, you knew it was a death, but that you never discussed that with your brother? A. Never. Q. Never asked him about what happened or what he knew about it and so forth? A. Sure did not. . . . . A.... I just knew he was involved in a wreckI mean an accident. I don't know anything about it, nothing about it. Q. Well, did you know that Steve Baccus, who is Mr. Ashe's law partner, had represented your brother in that lawsuit? A. I did not. . . . . A. I don't know Mr. Baccus. . . . . Q. And it's your testimony that that was never mentioned at Christmas or Thanksgiving or anything like that? A. Never. . . . . Q.... Is it your testimony under oath that you saw your brother at Christmastime and there was no mention in any shape, form or fashion directly or indirectly about the fact that this multi-million dollar lawsuit had been settled the month previous for over $1,000,000 where your brother was a defendant? A. That's correct, not one word.