But, selecting a jury is overall pretty much the same. A big pool of potential jurors are called for jury duty. By a supposed random sample (like picking names out of a hat) 12 jurors are initially picked and go to the jury box. All the rest of the jury pool stays where they are in the Courtroom. Then the lawyers start asking the jurors general question. Like where you live, what you do, are you married, do you have children, where do you work, do you know any of the attorneys or anybody involved with the case, etc. After the jury responds to all of those general questions, the lawyers ask more specific questions. Especially about anything you answered to in the first round of questions.
Somewhere along the line you are asked whether or not you have ever served on a jury and if you have you get some questions about that. Since attorney David Teddy was in attendance with the Teddy Family (a cousin to Jim Teddy) everybody got asked about how they knew David Teddy and would that affect our ability to be fair and impartial on the jury. May of us know or know of David Teddy. Some said they knew David Teddy well and would probably not be able to be fair and impartial. One man said he had grown up and gone to school with David and Jim Teddy. One lady said David Teddy was her family attorney. Those folks were eventually excused for cause. One man said that he had been in court and represented himself and didn’t get anywhere until he hired an attorney. He said that he believed Courts were all about money. He was eventually excused too. Just a few others were excused for other reasons.
I, Juror No. 7, was especially grilled by both sets of attorneys. I knew David Teddy, I had Court Watched some of the cases he had tried, including a murder case and the Mindy Morrow case that I mentioned earlier in this series of articles. I had also previously been called to jury duty but had never been selected to actually serve on a jury. I knew the lawyers would dig deep, so I basically told everything about everything. I told the lawyers that I had observed the selection of many juries. I had watched many trials and jury selections. I had reported what I saw in court may times in the “Citizens For Good Government” newspaper and website version going back 20 years. I told them that I had seen evidence withheld from juries that unfairly caused guilty and not guilty verdicts. I told them that in my court watching I would sit as near the jury as I could, hear what they heard (and often heard what they were not allowed to hear), see what they say, make my own conclusion about the case as if I was on the jury and sometimes when evidence was withheld from the jury, make my own conclusion from all the evidence. I told them over and over again that when I go court watching I pay attention to everything, The witnesses, the testimony, the judge, the lawyers, everything. I told them that I would be fair and impartial to both sides, would listen to all of the evidence and make my judgement accordingly. I planned to be prepared if I ere selected.
I did all of this for several reasons. I wanted both sides to know what they would be getting if I was selected for the jury. And if they wanted a juror who slept through half or more of a month long trial and who could be fooled into a favorable verdict for one side or the other just by some slick lawyer talk, they were badly mistaken. I also spoke up to let other jury pool members know that they should speak up too during this jury selection. That, if they were not exactly sure about such things as the proper burden of proof during the trial, they should ask for clarifications during jury selection when they in fact could speak up if they were confused about anything. Little did I know at the time, that my speaking up and asking questions would lead to the conclusion that leading and “stake-out” questions were being asked to the jury by the Doctor’s lawyers that would result in the judge ruling that such lawyer misconduct had “tainted” the entire jury pool which resulted in the entire jury pool being dismissed and the case re-scheduled to start all over again on July 30, 2018.
But, I am getting ahead of myself.
The Original Jim Teddy Wrongful Death-Medical Malpractice lawsuit “Complaint” (Filed May 4, 2015) is provided in full at the end of this article.
In general this lawsuit complains that Mr. Jim Teddy received a colonoscopy, the actual examination and determinations of the results of which were done with negligence and a lack of care missed finding a colon cancer that could have been treated favorably was missed. Which allowed the colon cancer to grow and metastasized to the liver before being diagnosed, resulting in an early death, medical bills and much pain and suffering for Mr. Teddy as well as his wife and family. Please note that the terms “wrongful death” and “medical malpractice” in this article are my terms to best describe this case although they may or may not actually be the precise legal terms that apply in this lawsuit.
A document I have previously described as a “Court Order” is also provided at the end of this article. I will still refer to it as a Court Order as it provides the basis for the “Lawyer Misconduct” that I have determined to be the cause of the throwing out of the “tainted” original jury and starting the trial all over again. From Scratch. Tomorrow, Monday June 30, 2018.
The “Court Order” document is also provided below. In this court document please note:
Para. 2 Requires that the defense attorneys be prohibited from “creating an inference” that the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) be applied to this case. Such inferences would tend to confuse or mislead the jury. This is exactly what the defense attorneys were doing during jury selection (voir dire) when I began to question them about such. I believe this led directly to my peremptory challenge later on.
Para 5. Statements such as “These types of lesions are difficult to detect during a colonoscopy” were not to be made during the trial as they would tend to prejudice and confuse the jury. Yet, as I recall, the defense attorneys made several references to such during jury selection.
Para 13 titled “Jury Selection” prohibited “stake out questions” as such questions. The exact wording says “Counsel may not pose hypothetical questions (to the jury pool) which are designed to elicit prom prospective jurors what their decision might be under a given state of facts. Such questions are improper because they tend to ‘state out’ a juror and cause him to pledge himself to a decision in advance of the evidence presented.” One particular “stake out question” I recall the defense attorney making was “Would you automatically consider the doctor negligent if his patient died at an early age?” I also recall my thought being “No, not automatically, but that sure would be a ‘red flag’ that would certainly cause me to listen closely to the evidence.” Such questioning as this I called “leading questions” in a previous article. I just “knew” what the defense attorney was doing here was wrong. And another reason I started questioning the defense attorney about such questions and the burden of proof that were different from the Teddy family lawyers asked the day before.