Opinion ID: 449209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Errors in Voir Dire

Text: 38 Omni argues that the jury was biased as a result of its purported knowledge of Guccione's association with sexually explicit magazines and films. Omni claims it is entitled to a new trial because the court refused to allow voir dire questions concerning juror attitudes on these issues and refused to conduct an evidentiary hearing after the verdict was returned to investigate the scope of the juror's knowledge of Guccione's activities. 39 In a pre-trial motion in limine, Omni sought to exclude any mention of Penthouse magazine from the trial, or in the alternative, Omni requested individual voir dire to probe the private opinions of jury members regarding sexually explicit magazines and films. Having granted Omni's first request, the court declined to individually voir dire the jurors. We find no error in this decision. 40 The district court was successful in achieving Omni's alleged objective--disassociating the present contract dispute from Guccione's more controversial activity. In fact, we think that the court may have chosen the best means of achieving Omni's goal; eliciting jury bias through the extensive questioning proposed by Omni might have magnified the importance of Guccione's connection with the sexually explicit subject matter and so have been counterproductive. 41 Moreover, we believe that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding that the alleged evidence of juror bias, elicited through an objective telephone poll conducted by employees of Omni's counsel, did not warrant a post-trial evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of the jurors' knowledge regarding Guccione's other activities.