Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
McCann v. Kelley
Citations: 209 Ga. App. 179; 433 S.E.2d 130; 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 2543; 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 784Docket: A93A0189
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; June 24, 1993; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Appellant filed a medical malpractice and negligence lawsuit against appellees, resulting in a jury verdict favoring the appellees. Following the verdict, appellant sought a new trial, claiming juror Gary Scobee failed to truthfully answer questions during voir dire regarding his biases against personal injury lawsuits. The trial court denied the motion, prompting this appeal. During voir dire, appellant’s counsel queried jurors about their feelings toward awarding damages in negligence cases. Scobee did not respond to these questions and was later selected as foreperson. Appellant alleged that in a subsequent case, Scobee expressed his Christian-based opposition to lawsuits. To support her motion for a new trial, appellant presented affidavits from two individuals who claimed Scobee affirmed his opposition to lawsuits during voir dire in the second case. In contrast, Scobee's affidavit asserted he understood and answered all questions truthfully during appellant’s trial, stating his personal beliefs would not bias his judgment. Appellant contended the trial court erred in ruling that Scobee's silence was truthful and that bias was unlikely to have occurred. Under OCGA 15-12-133, jurors are obliged to answer voir dire questions truthfully, and a juror's duty includes being attentive and voicing any confusion. Appellant cited precedent indicating that Scobee should have disclosed his biases, arguing his failure to do so constituted an untruthful response. In Hummel, the court determined that a juror's silence during voir dire equated to providing an untruthful answer, which warranted a new trial. However, this ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, where it clarified that discrepancies in juror responses do not automatically justify a new trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that a new trial is only warranted if the movant proves a juror failed to answer a material question honestly and that a truthful response would have allowed for a valid challenge for cause. An affidavit from juror Scobee indicated he would be hesitant to file a lawsuit due to personal beliefs but held no bias against any litigant. Another juror affirmed that Scobee showed no bias during deliberations. The appellant did not adequately demonstrate bias or prejudice stemming from the juror's responses, leading to the conclusion that the trial court correctly denied the motion for a new trial. The judgment was affirmed, with concurring opinions from McMurray and Beasley.