Page 1
Court of Appeal:
No Reversal Predicated on Juror Exclaiming ‘I Agree’ After Defendants’ Closing Argument
Opinion Says Removal Was Unnecessary in Light of Her Statement to Judge, Perceived as Credible, That She Would Be Fair to Both Sides
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A juror who blurted out, “I agree” after the defendant’s lawyer in a medical malpractice case wrapped up his closing argument was properly allowed to participate in the deliberations after assuring the judge she had an open mind, Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal declared on Friday.
The juror, Vanessa Galo, verbalized her agreement after the defendants’ attorney exhorted:
“But to do your job in this case, to do justice, I submit to you is to render a verdict in favor of Dr. Stahl.”
The defendants were Dr. Benjamin Stahl and Prima Medical Group.
Plaintiff Lesley Hill sought the removal of the juror, but retired Monterey Superior Court Judge Lydia M. Villarreal, who was sitting on assignment to the San Francisco Superior Court, denied the motion. After a 9-3 verdict came in for the defendants, Hill moved for a new trial, with no success.
During the pendency of the appeal, Hill died and was replaced by the personal representative of her estate, Elizabeth Soloway, who argued on appeal:
“Certainly Juror Galo’s statement of allegiance to Respondents while the trial was proceeding—before Appellant had delivered her rebuttal argument, before the jury had received their final instructions and before she had the opportunity to hear other juror’s insights and perspectives—establishes that she could no longer sit as a juror with ‘entire impartiality.’ ”
Appellate Opinion
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Danielle K. Douglas, sitting on assignment. authored the unpublished opinion upholding the judgment.
“An impartial jury in civil cases is a cornerstone of justice,” she wrote, adding:
“To preserve a jury’s impartiality, trial courts admonish jurors at the outset of every case and at every recess “that it is their duty not to form or express an opinion thereon until the case is finally submitted to them.”
But, she said, the judge properly made a reasonable inquiry of the juror as to her ability to keep an open mind, and found her to be credible in providing an assurance that she could be. Villarreal did not abuse her discretion, Douglas said, “especially given the court’s obligation to not unduly disrupt the jury’s deliberations.
The jurist opined that Galo’s “uninhibited utterance of agreement with the defense’s argument, without more, is at best ambiguous.”
Timing of Statement
She went on to say:
“The timing of Juror No. 5’s statement—i.e., before Hill’s rebuttal argument—is not per se prejudicial….Here, Juror No. 5’s statement was momentary, occurred after all the evidence had been heard and near the end of closing arguments, and there is no further evidence of bias or impact on other jurors….As the trial court explained, jurors regularly form and shift their opinions throughout a trial, and Hill’s rebuttal argument may have caused Juror No. 5 to reconsider whatever she found persuasive about the defense’s argument—as no doubt a rebuttal argument is intended to do.”
The case is Soloway v. Prima Medical Group, A165639.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company