The Connecticut Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on August 13, 2013, regarding the jury polling process in civil cases. The court decided that trial judges are not required to poll juries about their exposure to media coverage unless there is clear evidence of juror misconduct. This ruling came from the case of David Kervick, executor of the estate of Ruth Farrell, against Silver Hill Hospital and psychiatrist Ellyn Shander.
This decision affects how courts handle potential juror exposure to media, particularly in sensitive cases like medical malpractice. The ruling clarifies the responsibilities of trial courts when faced with requests to poll juries regarding their exposure to pre-trial media coverage.
Background
The case originated when Ruth Farrell was admitted to Silver Hill Hospital in January 2002 for treatment of severe mental health issues, including major depression and suicidal ideation. Tragically, Farrell committed suicide shortly after her admission. Following her death, Kervick filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and Shander, claiming they failed to provide adequate care, which led to Farrell’s death.
During the trial, the plaintiff's attorney raised concerns about a New York Times article that was published just before the trial began, which detailed the case and could potentially influence the jury's impartiality. The plaintiff requested that the jury be polled to determine if any jurors had read the article, fearing it could affect their judgment. However, the trial court declined this request, leading to an appeal.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, reversing the Appellate Court's decision that had previously ordered a new trial. The court stated, "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to poll the jury." The justices emphasized that the plaintiff did not present any evidence indicating that jurors had been influenced by the article or had failed to follow the court's instructions to avoid media coverage.
Judges Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, and Sheldon were involved in the ruling. They noted that the trial court had properly managed the situation by instructing jurors to avoid media exposure and that there was no indication that jurors had disregarded this instruction.
Impact
This ruling sets an important precedent for how trial courts handle requests to poll juries regarding media exposure in civil cases. It clarifies that a trial court is not obligated to conduct such polling unless there is evidence of juror misconduct. This decision aims to streamline trial procedures and reduce unnecessary delays caused by polling juries without substantial cause.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of juror instructions regarding media exposure, highlighting the expectation that jurors will adhere to these guidelines. This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance courts must maintain between ensuring a fair trial and managing the judicial process efficiently.
What's Next
The ruling in Kervick v. Silver Hill Hospital is final unless appealed to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.