On March 12, 2014, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Cordes v. Associates of Internal Medicine et. al. vacated a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case based upon the trial court's failure to strike 3 prospective jurors for cause.
In Cordes, the Plaintiff, during Voir Dire, challenged 3 prospective jurors for cause since 2 of the panel had family members who were patients of the Defendant Doctor and the third was an employee of a company that also employed the Defendant Doctor. The trial court refused to strike the jurors based upon the relationships due to the jurors assurances that they were not biased.
The Cordes, case was a case of first impression in the Pa Superior Court and the Pa Supreme Court. On appeal the Pa Superior Court found that "the close situational, familiar, and financial relationships presented in the instant case necessarily stripped the trial court of its discretion to rely upon the challenged jurors' assurances of impartiality. Rather, those relationships required exclusion per se". In so finding, the Court disregarded a decision of the Commonwealth Court which issued a contrary ruling.
The decision reaffirms the sanctity of our jury system. It further confirms that trial judges should not solely rely upon the assurances of prospective jurors when they have a financial or familial relationship to one of the parties. The problem is that a few judges are so anxious to empanel a jury that they do not seriously consider challenges for cause. Most judges are cautious and would have granted the challenges and struck the jurors. If that had occurred here it would have saved all parties and the Court time and money.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
