Court Opinion

ID: 9465507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:48:15.840104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:12.881975
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The parties have cited and research discloses no reported civil case where a district court’s decision to exclude or not to exclude a juror in circumstances comparable to those at bar has been held to be an abuse of discretion. Procedural control of a civil trial necessarily requiring, as it does, evaluation of human factors is clearly committed to the discretion of the trial court. It involves considerations with which an appellate court is ill-equipped to deal.
On hindsight it may be conceded that it would have been wiser for the district court to have seated an alternate or to have conducted some further examination of Mr. Paulk in order to ascertain the extent of the juror’s problem. Yet no one asked the trial court to conduct such an examination. Thus the record contains no clear showing of prejudice and this court is reversing on the mere possibility that prejudice may have resulted.
I cannot join in the opinion of the court or in the reversal of judgment.