Clem v. Pinal County/Lamb

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Plaintiff's counsel argued that judicial rehabilitation of a biased juror is ineffective and cannot be achieved simply by asking if the juror can be fair, citing historical and fictional examples to illustrate that true change requires significant time.
2. The court questioned whether the inquiry into Juror Six’s Facebook posting constituted an investigation into juror bias or misconduct, noting that the distinction affects the scope of permissible investigation and the standard for showing prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's counsel contended that seating a biased juror creates a structural error and an appearance of impropriety that poisons the jury panel from day one, arguing that removing the juror on day five does not remedy the initial failure to exclude them.
4. Defense counsel argued that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in seating Juror Six because the voir dire included substantial questioning and the juror affirmed their ability to be impartial, consistent with existing case law standards.
5. The parties debated whether Rule 606, which limits inquiry into juror deliberations, applied before a verdict was reached, with plaintiff's counsel suggesting it did not apply and defense counsel noting the trial court proceeded as if it did.
6. Defense counsel asserted that the burden is on the party seeking a mistrial to demonstrate prejudice, arguing that without evidence of what Juror Six shared with other jurors, substantial justice was done and no new trial is required.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT52M56S · Captions available