In Torres v. First Transit, Inc., Case No. 18-15186 (11th Cir., October 22, 2020), a bus owned by First Transit struck a vehicle occupied by plaintiffs, who then filed a negligence claim for damages against First Transit. First Transit admitted liability and the jury awarded damages to both plaintiffs. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying First Transit’s motion for a new trial, holding that when a party moving for a new trial based on a juror’s nondisclosure during voir dire makes a prima facie showing that the juror may not have been impartial and thus was plausibly challengeable for cause, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on the motion for a new trial in order to adequately investigate the alleged juror misconduct.
In this case, First Transit presented the district court with “clear, strong, substantial, and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety” occurred ? namely, certain court documents showed, on their face, that two jurors gave dishonest and misleading responses on their juror questionnaires and on voir dire. The court concluded that the district court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the question of juror impartiality. It was remanded with instructions to conduct such an evidentiary hearing to determine whether jurors made dishonest statements during voir dire where a truthful response “would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”
“Our legal system provides litigants the right to a “fair trial,” and a “touchstone” of that right is “an impartial trier of fact?a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.” McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 554, 104 S. Ct. 845, 849 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). The voir dire process, and the attendant right of the parties to challenge for cause the inclusion of potential jurors on the jury panel, safeguard that right by seeking to prevent jurors who are incapable of impartiality from deciding the case. Id. “The necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors” is “obvious”: These safeguards cannot function effectively when a later-empaneled juror commits misconduct by failing to honestly answer questions posed on voir dire. Id. If the juror’s deceit is not discovered until after a verdict has been rendered, the fundamental fairness of the entire trial is in question.” Torres v. First Transit, Inc., supra, at p.8