SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 17
Download to read offline
SM JUROR presents our analysis of:
Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g
and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
A juror’s intentional nondisclosure of information, when specifically
asked during voir dire, lead to prejudice and a new trial.
Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied
(Sept. 20, 2016).
Copyright 2017 – SM JUROR. All rights reserved.
www.smjuror.com
This presentation is brought to you by Nilgün Aykent Zahour, Esq.
Nilgün Aykent Zahour is the President and Founding Attorney
of SM JUROR. With over twenty-eight years of litigation
experience, her passion is to help attorneys identify, preserve
and advance juror misconduct issues at trial and on appeal in
this constantly evolving area of the law. Don’t let juror
misconduct taint your verdict, especially when a juror uses
social media or the internet.
You can view Nilgün’s education and background on the SM
JUROR website by clicking here and also click/view her
LinkedIn profile.
Click on her latest article “The Verdict is In: Juries, Misconduct
and Social Media”.
Because the only evidence you want the jury to consider … is in the
courtroom.
Use SM JUROR.
LINKS ARE CLICKABLE ON PC DESKTOPS AND SOME MOBILE PHONES
Facts:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
Larson, a union member and employee of Union Pacific, filed a claim against his
employer when he fell off a ladder while working for Union Pacific. The trial court
entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $3.2, but subsequently granted the
defendant employer’s motion for new trial based on a juror’s nondisclosure during
voir dire of the fact that he was a union member. During voir dire, counsel for the
defendant specifically asked if any venireperson was a union member. Some people
responded that they were union members and were questioned further, but LS, a
person who was a union member and ultimately served on the jury, kept silent.
Counsel for both parties also questioned the potential jurors about any biases
prejudices or personal hardships that may lead them to be unfair, and LS again kept
silent.
Subsequent to the verdict, the attorney for Union Pacific discovered that LS was a
union member and that he characterized himself as an informal leader of the jury and
told the defendant’s jury researcher, Dr. David Giles, that he was “a union guy,” and
that the plaintiff had his vote “right off.” Defendant moved for a new trial asserting it was prejudiced
by LS’s nondisclosure of his union membership, when specifically asked about this during
voir dire. After an evidentiary hearing, LS said he forgot he was a union member. The
trial court granted the motion.
The abuse of discretion standard of review:
“A trial court has great discretion in determining whether to grant a new trial. Its decision is
presumed to be correct and will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Larsen
v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied
(Sept. 20, 2016).
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's ruling is so arbitrary and unreasonable as
to shock one's sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Id.
“It cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion where reasonable persons could
differ over the propriety of its ruling.” Id.
“Appellate courts should be more liberal in upholding a grant of a new trial than in awarding
a new trial when the trial court denies the motion. However, the granting of a motion for a
new trial can be an abuse of discretion where it is based on findings that are
not substantially supported by the record.” Id.
Two Steps in the Evaluation of A Nondisclosure by a Juror:
“Evaluation of a juror nondisclosure claim involves two steps.” Larsen v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or
transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“First, we review de novo whether the question posed was sufficiently clear. Id. If the
question was insufficiently clear, then there has been no nondisclosure.” Id.
“If clear, we then consider whether the nondisclosure was intentional.” Id.
When does an intentional nondisclosure by a juror occur?
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“Intentional nondisclosure occurs if: 1) there exists no reasonable inability to comprehend
the information solicited by the question asked of the prospective juror, and 2) the
prospective juror actually remembers the experience or that it was of such significance that
his purported forgetfulness is unreasonable.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213,
221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
“The determination of whether the nondisclosure was intentional is reviewed for abuse of
discretion.” Id.
Proving that the juror’s nondisclosure was intentional:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“[A] claimant seeking to prove intentional nondisclosure must establish that the
venireperson is consciously aware of an objective fact and then fails to disclose that
fact despite an unequivocal request to do so from the court or counsel.” Larsen v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer
denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
Intentional versus unintentional nondisclosure by a juror:
“The determination of whether the nondisclosure was intentional is reviewed for abuse of
discretion.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or
transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“If the nondisclosure was
intentional, prejudice is
presumed; if the nondisclosure
was unintentional, the party
seeking a new trial must prove
prejudice.” Id. We weigh the
evidence in the light most
favorable to the trial court's
order.” Id.
INTENTIONAL
NONDISCLOSURE
UNINTENTIONAL
NONDISCLOSURE
Prejudice is
presumed
Prejudice
must be
proven
The Evaluation of A Juror’s Nondisclosure At Voir Dire*:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
STEP 1:
Was the question posed by the
attorneys or court sufficiently clear?
NONondisclosure YES
No
Nondisclosure
INTENTIONAL
NONDISCLOSURE
“[A] claimant seeking to prove
intentional nondisclosure must
establish that the venireperson is
consciously aware of an objective
fact and then fails to disclose that
fact despite an unequivocal request
to do so from the court or counsel.”
Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503
S.W.3d 213, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016),
reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept.
20, 2016).
UNINTENTIONAL
NONDISCLSOURE
YES
NO
Prejudice is
presumed
Prejudice
must be
proven
*Unless otherwise notes, information is from Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g
and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
STEP 2:
Was the
nondisclosure
intentional?
Statements by jurors minimizing the effect of misconduct
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“Statements of jurors minimizing the
effect of misconduct are entitled to very
little weight.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R.
Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 224 (Mo. Ct. App.
2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept.
20, 2016).
“It was nothing,
really …”
A juror or venireperson’s duty to answer questions truthfully:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“Venirepersons have a duty to answer all questions fully, fairly, and truthfully during
voir dire. Failure to respond fully, fairly, and truthfully can deprive the parties of
information needed to exercise peremptory challenges or challenges for cause to
ensure an impartial jury is empaneled.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213,
221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
“An unequivocal question triggers a venireperson's duty to disclose information. A
venireperson's silence to an unequivocal question establishes juror nondisclosure, if
the information is known to the juror.” Id.
Appellate courts defer to the trial court on credibility issues:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
“Appellate courts defer on credibility determinations because the circuit court is in
a better position to weigh the contested and conflicting evidence.” Larsen v. Union
Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer
denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
“The circuit court is able to judge directly not only the demeanor of witnesses, but
also their sincerity and character and other [ ] intangibles that the record may not
completely reveal.” Id.
Holding:
Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
The record establishes that counsel specifically asked the jury venire if anyone was a
union member and LS deliberately kept silent. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial
court assessed the credibility of LS and Dr. Giles and found LS’s testimony, that he
forgot he was a union member, lacked credibility, especially since Dr. Giles testified
how LS volunteered he was “a union guy” and that plaintiff has his “vote right off.”
Due to LS’s intentional nondisclosure of his union membership, Union Pacific was
presumed to be prejudiced and Larson did not rebut this presumption. The
appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion for new trial, finding that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting it.
Like what you see? Want more?
to sign up for our free SM JUROR newsletter, filled
with information about new juror misconduct cases,
short webinars, or other helpful resources to help
you identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct
cases at trial and on appeal.
Click here
This is a clickable link
Links are clickable on PC desktops and some
mobile phones
We want to connect with you. Connect with SM JUROR by
clicking on your favorite social media networks below:
The phones above are clickable links
on PC desktops and some mobile phones

More Related Content

Similar to A juror's intentional nondisclosure of information was juror misconduct & led to a new trial: An examination of Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docx
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions  May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docxColorado Supreme Court Opinions  May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docx
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docxclarebernice
 
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-ky
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-kyKindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-ky
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-kyZ Research
 
Dewey_ValparaisoArticle
Dewey_ValparaisoArticleDewey_ValparaisoArticle
Dewey_ValparaisoArticleScott Dewey
 
Relief before trial in Massachusetts
Relief before trial in MassachusettsRelief before trial in Massachusetts
Relief before trial in MassachusettsMorris Singer
 
Seminar Paper - Jury Argument
Seminar Paper - Jury ArgumentSeminar Paper - Jury Argument
Seminar Paper - Jury ArgumentKeith Jackson
 
Scott_McMillan_v_Darren_Chaker
Scott_McMillan_v_Darren_ChakerScott_McMillan_v_Darren_Chaker
Scott_McMillan_v_Darren_ChakerDarren Chaker
 
Stand Your Ground Memo
Stand Your Ground MemoStand Your Ground Memo
Stand Your Ground MemoLindsay Lee
 
Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...
Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...
Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...NationalUnderwriter
 
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Law Web
 
06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)
06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)
06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)VogelDenise
 
06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)
06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)
06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)VogelDenise
 
Dealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration court
Dealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration courtDealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration court
Dealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration courtUmesh Heendeniya
 
Last will (1)
Last will (1)Last will (1)
Last will (1)awasalam
 
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - RedactedVogelDenise
 

Similar to A juror's intentional nondisclosure of information was juror misconduct & led to a new trial: An examination of Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (20)

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docx
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions  May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docxColorado Supreme Court Opinions  May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docx
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docx
 
2365026_1
2365026_12365026_1
2365026_1
 
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-ky
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-kyKindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-ky
Kindred Kentucky Supreme Court 16 32-op-bel-ky
 
Dewey_ValparaisoArticle
Dewey_ValparaisoArticleDewey_ValparaisoArticle
Dewey_ValparaisoArticle
 
Relief before trial in Massachusetts
Relief before trial in MassachusettsRelief before trial in Massachusetts
Relief before trial in Massachusetts
 
Employment lawupdate
Employment lawupdateEmployment lawupdate
Employment lawupdate
 
Seminar Paper - Jury Argument
Seminar Paper - Jury ArgumentSeminar Paper - Jury Argument
Seminar Paper - Jury Argument
 
Scott_McMillan_v_Darren_Chaker
Scott_McMillan_v_Darren_ChakerScott_McMillan_v_Darren_Chaker
Scott_McMillan_v_Darren_Chaker
 
Stand Your Ground Memo
Stand Your Ground MemoStand Your Ground Memo
Stand Your Ground Memo
 
Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...
Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...
Judge Posner Dismisses "Frivolous" Appeal of Contempt Order in Subrogation Ca...
 
Gaggero Background 1
Gaggero Background 1Gaggero Background 1
Gaggero Background 1
 
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
 
06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)
06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)
06/29/18 GOOD-FAITH DEMAND. . . 20180460 (Planters Bank Foreclosure Scams)
 
Legal Ethics
Legal EthicsLegal Ethics
Legal Ethics
 
06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)
06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)
06/22/18 Notice Of Fraud Upon Court (WCCC 20180460)
 
Dealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration court
Dealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration courtDealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration court
Dealing with difficult judges, difficult examiners in immigration court
 
Last will (1)
Last will (1)Last will (1)
Last will (1)
 
Lance collins memo
Lance collins memoLance collins memo
Lance collins memo
 
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - Redacted
 
04121601shd
04121601shd04121601shd
04121601shd
 

Recently uploaded

Right to life and personal liberty under article 21
Right to life and personal liberty under article 21Right to life and personal liberty under article 21
Right to life and personal liberty under article 21vasanthakumarsk17
 
ENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened to
ENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened toENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened to
ENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened toirenelavilla52178
 
1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales
1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales
1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in SalesMelvinPernez2
 
Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327
Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327
Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327bariajenne
 
Hungarian legislation made by Robert Miklos
Hungarian legislation made by Robert MiklosHungarian legislation made by Robert Miklos
Hungarian legislation made by Robert Miklosbeduinpower135
 
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...Rich Bergeron
 
OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...
OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...
OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC Counterclaims
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC CounterclaimsTown of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC Counterclaims
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC CounterclaimsRich Bergeron
 
Choosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in Texas
Choosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in TexasChoosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in Texas
Choosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in TexasBrandy Austin
 
Illinois Department Of Corrections reentry guide
Illinois Department Of Corrections reentry guideIllinois Department Of Corrections reentry guide
Illinois Department Of Corrections reentry guideillinoisworknet11
 
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...Rich Bergeron
 
Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdf
Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdfAshutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdf
Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdfVidit Agrawal
 
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment Case
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment CaseTown of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment Case
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment CaseRich Bergeron
 
Are There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los Angeles
Are There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los AngelesAre There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los Angeles
Are There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los AngelesChesley Lawyer
 
RA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptx
RA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptxRA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptx
RA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptxJFSB1
 

Recently uploaded (15)

Right to life and personal liberty under article 21
Right to life and personal liberty under article 21Right to life and personal liberty under article 21
Right to life and personal liberty under article 21
 
ENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened to
ENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened toENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened to
ENG7-Q4-MOD3. determine the worth of ideas mentioned in the text listened to
 
1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales
1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales
1990-2004 Bar Questions and Answers in Sales
 
Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327
Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327
Power Point Obligations and contracts Article 1313-1327
 
Hungarian legislation made by Robert Miklos
Hungarian legislation made by Robert MiklosHungarian legislation made by Robert Miklos
Hungarian legislation made by Robert Miklos
 
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Facts for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims ...
 
OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...
OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...
OMassmann - Investment into the grid and transmission system in Vietnam (2024...
 
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC Counterclaims
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC CounterclaimsTown of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC Counterclaims
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC Counterclaims
 
Choosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in Texas
Choosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in TexasChoosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in Texas
Choosing the Right Business Structure for Your Small Business in Texas
 
Illinois Department Of Corrections reentry guide
Illinois Department Of Corrections reentry guideIllinois Department Of Corrections reentry guide
Illinois Department Of Corrections reentry guide
 
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...
Town of Haverhill's Statement of Material Facts For Declaratory Judgment Moti...
 
Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdf
Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdfAshutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdf
Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP 22nd March, 2024 All HC.pdf
 
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment Case
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment CaseTown of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment Case
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment Case
 
Are There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los Angeles
Are There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los AngelesAre There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los Angeles
Are There Any Alternatives To Jail Time For Sex Crime Convictions in Los Angeles
 
RA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptx
RA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptxRA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptx
RA. 7432 and RA 9994 Senior Citizen .pptx
 

A juror's intentional nondisclosure of information was juror misconduct & led to a new trial: An examination of Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)

  • 1. SM JUROR presents our analysis of: Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). A juror’s intentional nondisclosure of information, when specifically asked during voir dire, lead to prejudice and a new trial.
  • 2. Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
  • 3. Copyright 2017 – SM JUROR. All rights reserved. www.smjuror.com
  • 4. This presentation is brought to you by Nilgün Aykent Zahour, Esq. Nilgün Aykent Zahour is the President and Founding Attorney of SM JUROR. With over twenty-eight years of litigation experience, her passion is to help attorneys identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct issues at trial and on appeal in this constantly evolving area of the law. Don’t let juror misconduct taint your verdict, especially when a juror uses social media or the internet. You can view Nilgün’s education and background on the SM JUROR website by clicking here and also click/view her LinkedIn profile. Click on her latest article “The Verdict is In: Juries, Misconduct and Social Media”. Because the only evidence you want the jury to consider … is in the courtroom. Use SM JUROR. LINKS ARE CLICKABLE ON PC DESKTOPS AND SOME MOBILE PHONES
  • 5. Facts: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR Larson, a union member and employee of Union Pacific, filed a claim against his employer when he fell off a ladder while working for Union Pacific. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $3.2, but subsequently granted the defendant employer’s motion for new trial based on a juror’s nondisclosure during voir dire of the fact that he was a union member. During voir dire, counsel for the defendant specifically asked if any venireperson was a union member. Some people responded that they were union members and were questioned further, but LS, a person who was a union member and ultimately served on the jury, kept silent. Counsel for both parties also questioned the potential jurors about any biases prejudices or personal hardships that may lead them to be unfair, and LS again kept silent. Subsequent to the verdict, the attorney for Union Pacific discovered that LS was a union member and that he characterized himself as an informal leader of the jury and told the defendant’s jury researcher, Dr. David Giles, that he was “a union guy,” and that the plaintiff had his vote “right off.” Defendant moved for a new trial asserting it was prejudiced by LS’s nondisclosure of his union membership, when specifically asked about this during voir dire. After an evidentiary hearing, LS said he forgot he was a union member. The trial court granted the motion.
  • 6. The abuse of discretion standard of review: “A trial court has great discretion in determining whether to grant a new trial. Its decision is presumed to be correct and will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's ruling is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one's sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Id. “It cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion where reasonable persons could differ over the propriety of its ruling.” Id. “Appellate courts should be more liberal in upholding a grant of a new trial than in awarding a new trial when the trial court denies the motion. However, the granting of a motion for a new trial can be an abuse of discretion where it is based on findings that are not substantially supported by the record.” Id.
  • 7. Two Steps in the Evaluation of A Nondisclosure by a Juror: “Evaluation of a juror nondisclosure claim involves two steps.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “First, we review de novo whether the question posed was sufficiently clear. Id. If the question was insufficiently clear, then there has been no nondisclosure.” Id. “If clear, we then consider whether the nondisclosure was intentional.” Id.
  • 8. When does an intentional nondisclosure by a juror occur? Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “Intentional nondisclosure occurs if: 1) there exists no reasonable inability to comprehend the information solicited by the question asked of the prospective juror, and 2) the prospective juror actually remembers the experience or that it was of such significance that his purported forgetfulness is unreasonable.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). “The determination of whether the nondisclosure was intentional is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Id.
  • 9. Proving that the juror’s nondisclosure was intentional: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “[A] claimant seeking to prove intentional nondisclosure must establish that the venireperson is consciously aware of an objective fact and then fails to disclose that fact despite an unequivocal request to do so from the court or counsel.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016).
  • 10. Intentional versus unintentional nondisclosure by a juror: “The determination of whether the nondisclosure was intentional is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “If the nondisclosure was intentional, prejudice is presumed; if the nondisclosure was unintentional, the party seeking a new trial must prove prejudice.” Id. We weigh the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order.” Id. INTENTIONAL NONDISCLOSURE UNINTENTIONAL NONDISCLOSURE Prejudice is presumed Prejudice must be proven
  • 11. The Evaluation of A Juror’s Nondisclosure At Voir Dire*: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR STEP 1: Was the question posed by the attorneys or court sufficiently clear? NONondisclosure YES No Nondisclosure INTENTIONAL NONDISCLOSURE “[A] claimant seeking to prove intentional nondisclosure must establish that the venireperson is consciously aware of an objective fact and then fails to disclose that fact despite an unequivocal request to do so from the court or counsel.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). UNINTENTIONAL NONDISCLSOURE YES NO Prejudice is presumed Prejudice must be proven *Unless otherwise notes, information is from Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). STEP 2: Was the nondisclosure intentional?
  • 12. Statements by jurors minimizing the effect of misconduct Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “Statements of jurors minimizing the effect of misconduct are entitled to very little weight.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 224 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). “It was nothing, really …”
  • 13. A juror or venireperson’s duty to answer questions truthfully: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “Venirepersons have a duty to answer all questions fully, fairly, and truthfully during voir dire. Failure to respond fully, fairly, and truthfully can deprive the parties of information needed to exercise peremptory challenges or challenges for cause to ensure an impartial jury is empaneled.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). “An unequivocal question triggers a venireperson's duty to disclose information. A venireperson's silence to an unequivocal question establishes juror nondisclosure, if the information is known to the juror.” Id.
  • 14. Appellate courts defer to the trial court on credibility issues: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR “Appellate courts defer on credibility determinations because the circuit court is in a better position to weigh the contested and conflicting evidence.” Larsen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 503 S.W.3d 213, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Sept. 20, 2016). “The circuit court is able to judge directly not only the demeanor of witnesses, but also their sincerity and character and other [ ] intangibles that the record may not completely reveal.” Id.
  • 15. Holding: Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR The record establishes that counsel specifically asked the jury venire if anyone was a union member and LS deliberately kept silent. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court assessed the credibility of LS and Dr. Giles and found LS’s testimony, that he forgot he was a union member, lacked credibility, especially since Dr. Giles testified how LS volunteered he was “a union guy” and that plaintiff has his “vote right off.” Due to LS’s intentional nondisclosure of his union membership, Union Pacific was presumed to be prejudiced and Larson did not rebut this presumption. The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion for new trial, finding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting it.
  • 16. Like what you see? Want more? to sign up for our free SM JUROR newsletter, filled with information about new juror misconduct cases, short webinars, or other helpful resources to help you identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct cases at trial and on appeal. Click here This is a clickable link Links are clickable on PC desktops and some mobile phones
  • 17. We want to connect with you. Connect with SM JUROR by clicking on your favorite social media networks below: The phones above are clickable links on PC desktops and some mobile phones