Striking / Excusing a Prospective Juror for Bias during Voir Dire

in Appeal, Burden of Proof, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

An attorney’s opportunity to question prospective jurors (the jury venire) is an important part of the trial process. This is known as voir dire. Attorneys want to ask tailored questions to determine those persons in the venire that should be stricken for cause, those for which they should exercise a peremptory challenge, and those, quite frankly, they want to sit on the jury panel. There is strategy involved including wanting to develop a rapport with jurors. These are the potential folks that will render a verdict in the case and analyze the factual evidence based on the law (jury instructions)....

27 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Avoiding the Mistrial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

If you prevailed at trial, there is nothing worse than a mistrial. Talking about taking the wind out of your sails. It happens. Unfortunately. Boyles, Personal Representative vs. Dillard’s Inc., 41 Fla.L.Weekly D1709a (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), is a case where the defense prevailed, but on appeal, the court granted a mistrial for multiple (or cumulative) reasons, only two of which will be discussed below. Both reasons, however, could have been avoided. A. Closing Argument First, during closing argument, the defense counsel tried to attack the credibility of the plaintiff’s trial testimony by bringing up what the plaintiff testified to during her deposition....

08 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Importance of Laying the Appropriate Foundation for the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

As you can tell from prior postings, I love the business records exception to the hearsay rule because of its importance in civil disputes, particularly business disputes. Without the business records exception, many business records that are needed to prove a claim or defense would be excluded as evidence under the hearsay rule. But, with the business records exception, these important records are admissible as long as a witness lays the appropriate foundation. The reason an appropriate foundation is required is to ensure the reliability or trustworthiness of the business records before deeming the records admissible evidence. The case of Bank...

25 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Voir Dire and Reasonable Opportunity to Examine Prospective Jurors

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Voir Dire

Voir dire, as mentioned in prior postings, is a very important part of the jury trial process. Voir dire is when the parties have an opportunity to examine and question prospective jurors in the context of their theme and case in order to determine which six jurors (and alternate) should be sworn in on the jury panel. The objective behind voir dire is to ensure that parties have a fair and impartial jury for your case.Williams v. State, 424 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The right of parties (and even the trial court) in civil dispute to engage in...

27 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Civil Jury Trials and the Basics of Peremptory and Cause Juror Challenges

Posted by David Adelstein

in Voir Dire

Civil jury trials in a Florida state court require 6 jurors. See Fla.Stat. s. 69.071. The court also generally directs for 1 or 2 alternate jurors to be selected. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.431(g). During jury selection in civil trials, or the voir dire process, parties have peremptory challenges and challenges for cause that are used to strike a prospective juror(s) from being sworn on the jury panel. These challenges are a very important component of the jury trial process designed to not only prevent biased or partial jurors from being sworn to the jury panel (challenges for cause), but to allow a party to strike...