TalkLeft reports that Martha Stewart is seeking a new trial based on the allegation that one juror (the same one who kept blabbing about how this was a victory for the little people) lied in his responses to voir dire. The juror had apparently spent a few days in jail on a domestic violence charge that was eventually dropped; yet he reportedly answered that he had never been involved in a legal matter more serious than a traffic violation.
The standard for getting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers on voir dire is set forth in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984):
We hold that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror's impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.
Here, based on what the juror has said since the verdict, we might have reason to wonder about his impartiality, and also about whether the jury even knew why it was convicting Stewart. However, if the test is that Stewart has to show that (a) the question about involvement in the legal system was material; and (b) that a true response would furnish a basis for a challenge for cause, I'm not sure that Stewart prevails. First, I wonder whether the question really was material. To some extent, we have to look at the answer to gauge this, which in turn might blur into the second issue.
Suppose that the juror had answered truthfully that he had been jailed on a domestic violence charge that was dropped. I have a hard time seeing how that would provide cause to dismiss him from the jury for bias. If anything, it might suggest that he would be more sympathetic to the notion that the government sometimes arrests and charges people erroneously.
Apparently, Stewart's lawyer is arguing that he would have dismissed this juror using a peremptory challenge. However, that doesn't appear to be the test for getting a new trial, because you could always state after the fact that you would've dismissed this juror using a peremptory challenge.
UPDATE: Prof. Bainbridge also thinks that this motion is not likely to win.
Comments