Today’s Class

1. Today’s Class • Juror mechanics and integrity: • Eliminating individual jurors. • “For cause” • Peremptory challenges. • Control Over the Jury: • Reid. • Pre-Verdict Control Over the Jury: • Judgment as a Matter of Law • Chamberlain. • Timing issues.

2. Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray

3. HYPO Ms. Pina Coloda is a prospective juror in a civil case involving damages stemming from a drunk-driving accident. Ms. Pina Coloda was asked if she ever drove after drinking a little too much. She answered, “Never.” She was then asked if she knew any people who drink too much. And she said “Yes, my ex-husband and the drunken teenager from across the street who ran down my little girl six years ago.” Ms. Coloda is then asked whether the fact someone drinks will affect whether she believes what they have to say. Ms. Coloda replies: “Of course, people who drink never tell the truth. If they’re involved in an accident, they won’t admit that they were at fault even though they always are. Everybody knows that.” If you represent the defendant, Bud Light, what do you do?

4. HYPO Ms. Pina Coloda is a prospective juror in a civil case involving damages stemming from a drunk-driving accident. Ms. Pina Coloda was asked if she ever drove after drinking a little too much. She answered, “Never”; and she became indignant when asked if she knew anyone who did. “No,” she said, “I don’t associate with drunks.” She was then asked if she could be impartial, not make up her mind about a case before hearing the evidence, and follow the judges instructions on the law, to which she replied “Yes.” She was then asked if it would be a hardship for her to serve on the jury and she said: “No, so long as the trial does not last very long. I have a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) convention in Chicago in three weeks.” If you represent the defendant, Bud Light, what do you do?

5. HYPO The Red Baron is dusting crops in central Indiana. All of a sudden, he sees coming toward him a biplane shaped like a doghouse piloted by a beagle with a silk scarf flowing in the wind. The Red Baron smiled and waved, but Snoopy rammed him, sending The Red Baron spiraling to the earth. The Red Baron then sued Snoopy for negligence. The prospective pool of jurors was twelve people—9 white men, 1 African-American male, and 2 white females. Snoopy peremptorily struck three white males—Charlie Brown, Linus, and Pig Pen. Red Baron asks Judge Lucy for a sidebar and argues that Snoopy must give some legitimate reasons for his race- and gender-based challenges? Result?

6. Batson’s Three Steps • First, must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race; • Second, if that showing has been made, the party exercising the peremptory challenge must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question; and • Third, in light of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether purposeful discrimination has occurred. See Snyder v. Louisiana (2008).

7. HYPO The Red Baron is dusting crops in central Indiana. All of a sudden, he sees coming toward him a biplane shaped like a doghouse piloted by a beagle with a silk scarf flowing in the wind. The Red Baron smiled and waved, but Snoopy rammed him, sending The Red Baron spiraling to the earth. The Red Baron then sued Snoopy for negligence. The prospective pool of jurors was twelve people—3 white men, 1 African-American male, and 7 white females. Snoopy peremptorily struck three white males—Charlie Brown, Linus, and Pig Pen. Red Baron asks Judge Lucy for a sidebar and argues that Snoopy must give some legitimate reasons for his race- and gender-based challenges? Result?

8. Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad

9. Rule 50(a) “If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on the issue,the court may . . . grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party . . .”

10. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain