A law professor’s article on his experiences as a juror in a slip-and-fall case has resulted in a new trial for a grocery store found liable for $876,000.
A New Jersey appeals court ruled today that the defendant deserved a new trial, in part because the professor’s explanation of legal concepts to his fellow jurors had a tendency to influence the verdict. The court’s opinion (PDF) said the defendant was deprived of a fair trial because of the tendency and other cumulative trial errors, Legal Profession Blog reports.
The influence issue came to light after Seton Hall law professor Robert Martin wrote a December 2006 article for the New Jersey Law Journal reflecting on his experiences as foreman of the jury. Martin wrote that he was surprised that none of the lawyers used peremptory challenges to exclude him, even though he was a law professor, practicing lawyer and New Jersey state senator.
In the article, published in December 2006, Martin wrote that other jurors were relying on him to deal with abstract legal concepts. “I remain undecided as to whether it's advisable to have a lawyer serve on a jury—especially as its foreman,” he said.
Comments