Court Opinion

ID: 9469652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:46:06.264395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:29.953691
License: Public Domain

BARRETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s view that juror Payton’s failure to disclose his son’s accident during voir dire prejudiced Greenwood’s right of peremptory challenge under our Photostat Corp. v. Ball
The record does not indicate that juror Payton, by his silence, improperly answered the court’s voir dire query as to whether he or any member of his family had sustained any injuries resulting in any disability or prolonged pain or suffering. Payton simply did not consider his son’s broken leg received as the result of an exploding tire, to be an injury resulting in disability or prolonged pain and suffering. He so stated during the post-trial telephone interview. That statement, in my view, does not imply that Payton believed that Billy’s injuries did not give rise to a disability or prolonged pain and suffering.
Payton’s expressed belief that his son’s broken leg did not result in a disability or prolonged pain and suffering must be considered in the context of risks that a parent recognizes in the everyday life of growing children. It does not establish probable bias with consequential prejudice to the Greenwoods. This conclusion is justified, I believe, in light of the unanimous jury assessment of Billy’s damages in amount of $375,000.00.
If juror Payton had been prejudiced against Billy’s injuries to the extent indicated, it is inconceivable that he would have joined in assessing Billy’s damages at $375,-000.00. Thus, I would hold that there has been no showing of probable bias by juror Payton with consequent prejudice to Billy.
In lieu of complete reversal, I suggest that a partial remand to the trial court with instruction to conduct an evidentiary hearing into the issue of Payton’s possible bias and prejudice is the proper course to be followed.