DocketNumber： 93-1532
Filed Date： 2/9/1994
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 3/3/2016
February 8, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1532
IRMA VIOLETA DAVILA CORTES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DR. ANTONIO RAMOS BARROSO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
A. Santiago Villalonga with whom Law Offices of Harvey B. Nachman
______________________ _________________________________
was on brief for appellant.
Angel R. De Corral-Julia with whom Ruy V. Diaz-Diaz, De Corral &
________________________ ________________ ____________
De Mier and Jose M. Ramos-Barroso were on brief for appellees.
_______ _____________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Irma Violeta Davila Cortes sued her
___________
gynecologist, Dr. Antonio Ramos Barroso, for medical
malpractice, alleging that she was injured by Dr. Ramos
negligence in performing a hysterectomy upon her on March 21,
1989. The case was tried to a jury in January 1993, and the
jury returned a verdict for the defendant. On February 2,
1993, Davila moved for a new trial on the ground that one of
the jurors, Ana Teresa Gonzalez, had improperly concealed a
business relationship with the defendant.
Davila's claim is that Gonzalez incorrectly answered a
question by the trial judge at voir dire, thereby precluding
_________
plaintiff from exercising her peremptory challenges in light
of all the relevant facts. Specifically, the trial judge
asked all of the prospective jurors whether any of them were
"personally acquainted with this defendant, related to him by
blood or marriage, or [if any juror] or any member of [her]
immediate family [had] any connection of any kind with this
defendant." All the jurors responded in the negative.
Individual questioning of the jurors selected for the
trial panel revealed that Gonzalez was employed as an
assistant manager in the credit department of Medics Hospital
Supply, a business engaged in selling medical supplies to
doctors, patients, and hospitals. Although Gonzalez has
never indicated that she had any direct relationship with the
defendant Ramos, Davila learned after trial that Ramos had
-2-
-2-
been a client of either Medics or one of its sister companies
for at least ten years.1 On this basis Davila sought a new
trial.
The district court denied Davila's motion for a new
trial on the grounds that "[p]laintiff has offered no
evidence that the defendant and the juror in question knew
each other or that the juror was biased in favor of the
defendant. In addition, the plaintiff had ample opportunity
to question the juror during voir dire concerning whether she
or her employer had any business dealings with the
defendant." Davila moved for reconsideration, pointing out
that her attorneys were precluded by local rule from
interviewing Gonzalez after trial and that voir dire had been
_________
conducted by the court without questioning by the parties'
attorneys. The district court denied reconsideration, and
this appeal followed.
In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464
_________________________________ _________
U.S. 548, 556 (1984), the Supreme Court held that "to obtain
a new trial [based on a juror's inaccurate answer to a
question on voir dire], a party must first demonstrate that a
_________
juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir
____
dire, and then further show that a correct response would
____
____________________
1Davila also asserts that Ramos' office is two doors
down the block from one of Medics' branch offices in Hato
Rey; there is no evidence, however, that this was the office
at which Gonzalez was employed.
-3-
-3-
have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." The
reason for this requirement is that "[a] trial represents an
important investment of private and social resources, and it
ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate
clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process
because counsel lacked an item of information which
objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire
_________
examination." Id. at 555. Our circuit has held further
___
that "[w]hen a non-frivolous suggestion is made that a jury
may be biased or tainted by some incident, the district court
must undertake an adequate inquiry to determine whether the
alleged incident occurred and if so, whether it was
prejudicial." United States v. Ortiz-Arrigoitia, 996 F.2d
_____________ ________________
436, 442 (1st Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 62 U.S.L.W.
_________________________
3496 (November 26, 1993). Nonetheless, "[a] district court
has broad, though not unlimited, discretion to determine the
extent and nature of its inquiry into allegations of juror
bias." Id. at 443. Where the allegations are unpersuasive
___
on their face, the district court s discretion includes the
discretion to undertake no investigation at all.
With these principles in mind, we find no abuse of
discretion in the district court s refusal to undertake an
investigation of Davila's allegations. As the district court
pointed out, there was no evidence of any kind that Gonzalez
knew Ramos. Even if we assume arguendo that Gonzalez knew
________
-4-
-4-
that Ramos did business with her employer, the court's voir
____
dire question about "any connection of any kind" was very
____
general; and nothing in Davila's allegations is inconsistent
with the view that Gonzalez's answer was at worst an honest
mistake. Cf. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 555 ("To invalidate the
___ _________
result of a 3-week trial because of a juror s mistaken,
though honest, response to a question, is to insist on
something closer to perfection than our judicial system can
be expected to give."). What Davila sought was permission to
embark upon a fishing expedition, and on this record we think
that the district court was not obligated to go along.2
Any doubt in our minds is eliminated by Davila's failure
at voir dire to inquire into the possibility of business
_________
dealings between Ramos and Gonzalez after the latter
disclosed that she worked for a medical supply company.
Although voir dire was conducted by the trial judge, the
__________
parties had the opportunity to request that certain questions
be put to prospective jurors. Given Davila's failure to
pursue a possible business connection between Ramos and
Gonzalez even after it was disclosed that her company was
engaged in selling medical supplies to doctors, we are not
____________________
2The Second Circuit reached an identical conclusion in a
remarkably similar case, holding that no inquiry into juror
bias was required where a juror failed to disclose on voir
____
dire that she was an officer at a bank that had dealings with
____
the defendants. See Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 660 F.2d 506,
___ ____________ _______
514 (2d Cir. 1981).
-5-
-5-
surprised that the district court viewed plaintiff s later
attempt to revive the issue with a jaundiced eye.
Affirmed.
________
-6-
-6-