Opinion ID: 2039996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Juror Candor

Text: On appeal to the court of appeals the defendant asserted that Brayshaw's false and misleading answers on voir dire and in a juror questionnaire prevented him from exercising his right to peremptorily challenge Brayshaw, and thus entitled him to a new trial for that reason. The court of appeals, rejecting this argument, adopted the rule enunciated in McDonough Power Equipment, a products liability case, as the rule to be employed in determining when a juror's failure to respond accurately to questions on voir dire entitles a party to a new trial. The McDonough Court established a two-step test. The Court held that in order to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. McDonough Power Equipment at 850. The court of appeals, in applying this two-part test, assumed that Brayshaw dishonestly answered questions put to him and that the first part of McDonough test was satisfied. [2] However, the court of appeals concluded that the second step of the McDonough test was not satisfied. The court of appeals stated that [n]either Brayshaw's marital status nor prison employment provided grounds to challenge him for cause under sec. 805.08(1), Stats. This section provides: 805.08 Jurors. (1) QUALIFICATIONS, EXAMINATION. The court shall examine on oath each person who is called as a juror to discover whether the juror is related by blood or marriage to any party or to any attorney appearing in the case, or has any financial interest in the case, or has expressed or formed any opinion, or is aware of any bias or prejudice in the case. If a juror is not indifferent in the case, the juror shall be excused. We conclude that the court of appeals erred in adopting the McDonough two-part test in total as the rule to be applied in Wisconsin proceedings based on sec. 805.08 (1), Stats. In McDonough, Billy Greenwood and his parents sued McDonough Power Equipment, Incorporated to recover damages sustained by Billy when his feet came in contact with the blades of a riding lawn mower manufactured by McDonough. McDonough Power Equipment at 846. During the voir dire, the Greenwoods' attorney asked prospective jurors the following question: `Now, how many of you have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury, not necessarily as severe as Billy, but sustained any injuries whether it was an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that resulted in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering, that is you or any members of your immediate family?' Id. at 847. Ronald Payton, who eventually became a juror, did not respond to this question. After a three week trial the jury found for McDonough. Subsequent to this verdict, the Greenwoods learned that juror Payton's son had been involved in a serious injury at one time, a fact which Payton had not revealed during voir dire. The Greenwoods moved the district court for permission to approach the members of jury and for a mistrial. The district court granted the Greenwoods permission to approach juror Payton regarding injuries allegedly sustained by his son but denied their motion for a new trial without ever being informed of the results of the examination of Payton. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that juror Payton's silence had prejudiced the Greenwoods' right to exercise peremptory challenges and thus required a new trial. Greenwood v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 687 F.2d 338, 342 (10th Cir. 1982). On certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, the Greenwoods argued that the court of appeals correctly held that impairment of the right of peremptory challenge is reversible error without a showing of prejudice. They maintained that the good faith of the nondisclosure and the actual bias of the juror are completely irrelevant to the determination of impairment of peremptory challenge. Defendant Wyss raised this same argument in his appeal before the court of appeals. The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument without fully explaining its rationale. The Court simply stated: A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination. McDonough Power Equipment at 850. We conclude that such a rejection is correct given that peremptory challenges have not acquired a constitutional footing. Thus, we decline to adopt the approach urged by Wyss before the court of appeals which would require a new trial to be granted whenever a party's right of peremptory challenge has been impaired. The United States Supreme Court in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 (1965), recognized the importance of peremptory challenges stating: Although `[t]here is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which requires the Congress [or the States] to grant peremptory challenges,' Stilson v. United States, 250 U.S. 583, 586, nonetheless the challenge is `one of the most important of the rights secured to the accused,' Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 408. The denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice, Lewis v. United States, supra ; Harrison v. United States, 163 U.S. 140; cf. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Shane, 157 U.S. 348. For it is, as Blackstone says, an arbitrary and capricious right; and it must be exercised with full freedom, or it fails of its full purpose.' Lewis v. United States, supra, at 378. Swain, 380 U.S. at 219. There is little doubt that if the trial court or the prosecution had deprived Wyss of his right to the effective exercise of his peremptory challenges it would have provided grounds for a new trial. Vargas, 606 F.2d at 346, citing Harrison v. United States, 163 U.S. 140 (1896), Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Shane, 157 U.S. 348 (1895), and Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (1892). But such is not the situation here. Neither the trial court nor the prosecution deprived the defendant of his right to the effective exercise of his peremptory challenges. There is no suggestion here that either the court or prosecution knew or should have known of juror Brayshaw's marital status, parentage, employment, or acquaintance with law enforcement personnel or the district attorney's office. It was juror Brayshaw's answers and lack of answers that caused this problem and abridged the defendant's right to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges. The defendant argues that since the prejudice and harm to him are no less when it is a juror, rather than the court or prosecution, that deprives him of his effective exercise of his peremptory challenge, the result should be the same: a new trial. We disagree. To adopt a per se rule and grant a new trial to a defendant in every instance in which a juror on voir dire answers a question dishonestly, would be to place a strain on the judicial system it could not long endure. As the McDonough Court noted: Trials are costly, not only for the parties, but also for the jurors performing their civic duty and for society which pays the judges and support personnel who manage the trials. It seems doubtful that our judicial system would have the resources to provide litigants with perfect trials, were they possible, and still keep abreast of its constantly increasing case load. McDonough Power Equipment at 848. Accordingly, we find, as did the Vargas court, that: If the juror had answered the questions fully he, undoubtedly, would have been subjected to more intensive interrogation by the court and the full facts disclosed. We do not treat lightly the concealment of information by a prospective juror, but the jury system, despite its vital role in our jurisprudence, is not perfect. It is based on the assumption that a person's guilt or innocence can best be determined by twelve persons representing a fair cross section of the community. We try to eliminate bias and prejudice by juror questionnaires and voir dire examination. There is no way, however, of absolutely insuring that a prospective juror will answer honestly the questions put to him. The secrecy within which juror's deliberations are necessarily cloaked prevents us, in most cases from ever finding out the reasons and motivations for a verdict. When an individual betrays his trust, the only recourse is to try to determine, as was done here, whether there was such a showing of bias or prejudice as to require a new trial. This protects, insofar as is humanly possible, the integrity of the jury trial. A new trial would be a windfall for a defendant, but it would have no prophylactic or deterrent effect on prospective jurors. United States v. Vargas, 606 F.2d at 346. (Emphasis added.) Thus, we conclude that the proper focus of inquiry when ruling on a motion for a new trial in this situation is whether the juror was biased against the litigant. In spite of our agreement with the McDonough Court's rejection of the argument that a new trial is mandated whenever a juror's nondisclosure or concealment interferes with a party's intelligent exercise of peremptory strikes, we decline to adopt the McDonough two part test as the rule to be followed in Wisconsin criminal proceedings. The McDonough Court held: To invalidate the result of a three-week trial because of a juror's mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give. . . . We hold that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. McDonough Power Equipment at 850. We conclude that the better rule is that in order to be awarded a new trial, a litigant must demonstrate: (1) that the juror incorrectly or incompletely responded to a material question on voir dire; and if so, (2) that it is more probable than not that under the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular case, the juror was biased against the moving party. See, e.g., McCoy, 652 F.2d at 659. The problem with the first step in the McDonough test is that an honest answer forecloses any further inquiry into the area of potential juror bias. We believe, as did five members of the United States Supreme Court as expressed in the concurring opinions of Justice Blackmun, with whom Justices Stevens and O'Connor joined, and Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall joined, that the first part of the test does not adequately protect parties who may be prejudiced by other than dishonest answers. An honest answer may nevertheless be objectively incorrect. A technically correct answer may nevertheless be incomplete. We conclude that an honest answer, if it is objectively incorrect or incomplete, should not preclude the moving party from making further inquiry with respect to juror bias. As one court has stated: Although a defendant has a right to have questions answered truthfully by prospective jurors, the failure of a juror to make a proper response to a question regarding his qualifications does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial. The proper inquiry by this court in such cases is whether the appellant's rights were prejudiced by the juror's failure to respond properly. Beauregard v. State, Ala. Cr. App., 372 So. 2d 37 (1979), cert. denied, Ala., 372 So. 2d 44, and cases cited therein. In Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So. 2d 330 (1970), our supreme court stated: `We hold that the proper inquiry for the trial court on motion for new trial, grounded on allegedly improper responses or lack of responses by prospective jurors on voir dire, is whether this has resulted in probable prejudice to the movant. This appears to be the general rule throughout the country. . . . Bufford v. State, 382 So. 2d 1162, 1172, (Ala. Cr. App. 1980). (Emphasis added.) Accord United States v. Vargas, 606 F.2d at 344. (The established rule is that the party seeking the new trial because of nondisclosure by a juror must prove bias or prejudice.); State v. Scruggs, 551 S.W.2d 306, 308 (Mo. App. 1977). (The chief consideration in determining whether a mistrial should be granted is whether the defendant was prejudiced.) We therefore depart from the first part of the McDonough test which denies inquiry into the area of potential juror bias whenever a prospective juror provides an honest answer to the question posed. It is too limited. A subjectively honest answer may well be objectively incorrect. A person may believe, given the vagueness and ambiguities inherent in language and the intelligence and education of that person, that he or she is giving an honest answer, yet that answer may be objectively incorrect. See McDonough Power Equipment at 849. (jurors are not necessarily experts in English usage.). Furthermore, a person could answer a question with a response that is technically correct, but which is objectively incomplete. An incomplete answer might conceal vital information pertaining to the potential bias of a prospective juror. The correct or complete answer could suggest, in a given case, that the individual would be a biased juror. Thus, we cannot agree with the McDonough Court that a new trial is never warranted whenever a prospective juror provides an honest answer to the question posed. We find that the better approach is to allow a movant to reach the issue of juror bias whenever the court determines that a juror has given an incorrect or incomplete answer to a material question on voir dire. As to the second part of the test, the McDonough Court held that in order to obtain a new trial, the party must show that had the juror given a correct response to a question asked on voir dire, a valid basis for a challenge for cause would be demonstrated. If we accept this express language of McDonough, we are concerned that it could be read entirely too narrowly. This concern was implicitly recognized by Justice Blackmun in his concurrence, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor. A narrow reading of the McDonough language (and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.) suggests that the correct response in and of itself must demonstrate the basis for a challenge for cause. The harshness of this approach can be easily demonstrated. Take for example a personal injury case where all prospective jurors are asked if they have any children. A juror who has a child fails to respond, but not only does she have a child, but her child had recently been badly injured in an automobile accident. If a litigant sought to have a new trial ordered once having learned of the juror's incorrect answer, that litigant would not prevail if the language of the McDonough opinion was applied narrowly. A correct answer on voir dire would have been that the prospective juror did have a child. However, applying the McDonough language literally, this correct answer would not prove to be sufficient to provide a basis to strike this juror for cause. The correct answer (yes, I have a child) would not in and of itself provide a basis for a challenge for cause. However, if further inquiry were allowed, it would reveal that not only did she have a child, but that that child had been seriously injured in an automobile accident and, possibly that she harbored antagonistic feelings against drivers of automobiles who caused accidents and insurance companies that contested benefits. A complete inquiry would have revealed that the prospective juror was sufficiently biased to provide a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Thus, we conclude that a narrow reading of McDonough fails to take into account the very real possibility that a correct and/or complete answer, although not providing a basis for challenge itself, may well provide the basis for further questions and responses that do uncover bias. Therefore, we conclude as did Justice Blackmun in his concurring opinion, that: Thus, regardless of whether a juror's answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court's option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a posttrial hearing at which the movant has the opportunity to demonstrate actual bias or, in exceptional circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-216, 102 S.Ct. 940, 944-945, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1982); id., at 221-224, 102 S. Ct., at 948-949 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). McDonough Power Equipment at 850. (Blackmun, J., concurring.) If, at the posttrial hearing, the movant can show that the juror did respond incorrectly or incompletely to a question, the movant must then be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate bias regardless of whether a correct response to a question asked on voir dire would in and of itself have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. In applying this second standard, a trial court should recognize that the bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied. See sec. 805.08, Stats. That statute provides a challenge for cause if there is actual bias, i.e., if the prospective juror has expressed or formed any opinion, or is aware of any bias or prejudice in the case. The statute also provides a challenge for cause if there is implied bias, and sets forth specific grounds that will automatically disqualify prospective jurors without regard to whether that person is actually biased, i.e., if the juror is related by blood or marriage to any party or to any attorney appearing in this case, or has a financial interest in the case. Bias may be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. The trial court must be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the juror was biased against the litigant. See e.g., McCoy, 652 F.2d at 659. Whether a juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate or incomplete answer was inadvertent or intentional, are factors to be considered in determining whether the juror was biased. Id. See Burkett v. State, 319 A.2d 845, 848-49 (Md. 1974); People v. Espinoza, 669 P.2d 142, 144 (Col. App. 1983); United States v. Moss, 591 F.2d 428, 438 (8th Cir. 1979). Thus, a material nondisclosure by a juror resulting from a purposefully incorrect answer, a deliberate concealment or other mendacious conduct may be sufficient by itself or under the totality of circumstances for a court to find bias. If the court considers the prospective juror's answers on voir dire in its ultimate determination of bias, the court should consider the following factors: (1) did the question asked sufficiently inquire into the subject matter to be disclosed by the juror; (2) were the responses of other jurors to the same question sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that an answer was required; (3) did the juror become aware of his or her false or misleading answers at anytime during the trial and fail to notify the trial court? McCoy, 652 F.2d at 659. We turn now to the questions before this court, based on the standard we have, enunciated: 1) whether juror Brayshaw incorrectly or incompletely responded to a material question on voir dire and, if so, 2) is it more probable than not that juror Brayshaw, under the facts and circumstances surrounding this particular case, was biased against Elmer Wyss. We find that juror Brayshaw incompletely responded to material questions in his juror questionnaire and on voir dire. In response to the question about marital status, Brayshaw checked the box indicating that he was single, whereas a complete answer to this question would have indicated that he had been divorced. Brayshaw also neglected to reveal that he had a son. During voir dire, juror Brayshaw failed to correctly answer questions regarding his acquaintance with law enforcement personnel and his contact with the district attorney's office. We conclude that the first part of the two part test is established: juror Brayshaw incorrectly and incompletely responded to material questions on voir dire. We conclude, however, that the second part of our two part test has not been met. In this case, the trial court determined that under the facts and circumstances surrounding this particular case, juror Brayshaw was not biased or prejudiced against the defendant. The trial court stated: To suggest that the non-disclosures by the juror prejudiced the defendant is to speculate. It could be argued that each of the non-disclosures could have shown a pre-disposition against the State. In point of fact, on this record, I cannot find that the juror was prejudiced one way or the other. I find that his verdict, like those of the other eleven jurors, was based upon the evidence. We accept the findings of the trial court, and conclude that the trial court's determination in this regard was not clearly erroneous. There is no showing in this record that Brayshaw was actually biased against the defendant. Nor are there any facts and circumstances demonstrated from which bias may be inferred. There is simply no evidence in this record which demonstrates that juror Brayshaw's incorrect or incomplete answers were the result of bias. Nor is there any indication that juror Brayshaw intentionally tried to conceal information or purposefully gave an incorrect answer. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial.