Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing Inc

Filing 29

ORDER: The Court appreciates Prince's proposed jury instructions. The Court is attaching its current working drafts of the (1) the voir dire outline, (2) the preliminary instructions, (3) the final instructions, and (4) the verdict form. Please file any comment or objection to the preliminary instructions by noon 11/9/2016. There's no need to comment or object yet on the final instructions or the verdict form. The Court directs the Clerk to correct the defendant's name on the docket. It should be Southern Snow Manufacturing Co., Inc. 28 . Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Voir Dire Outline, # 2 Preliminary Instructions, # 3 Final Instructions, # 4 Verdict Form)(jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
SAMANTHA PRINCE
v.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

SOUTHERN SNOW
MANUFACTURING, INC.

DEFENDANT

Voir Dire Outline
A.

Preliminaries
1.

Thank you for serving. Echo “Called to Serve.”

2.

A morning of speaking the truth, voir dire
= twelve people good and true.

3.

Two to three days—school hours.

4.

Urgent or extraordinary obligations this week?

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

5.

Rules of the Road:
•

Can I be completely fair and impartial?

•

Can I decide the case based solely on the
evidence seen and heard in this courtroom, the
law as explained by the Court, and my
common sense?

•

Questions and answers. You = you and your
immediate family.

•

Can answer at the bench if uncomfortable
answering a particular question in front of
others.

•

Raise your hand, state your name, and answer.

•

Eighteen, but all — Notepads.

•

Questionnaires. Summary. Confirm lawyers
have.

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-2-

•

Case Sketch — Not Evidence, Just Background.
This case is about an injury that happened
at a snow cone stand. Samantha Prince worked
at the stand in Russellville during the summer.
The machine that shaves the ice has a chute,
and the chute became jammed. Prince put her
hand in the chute to clear the jam, and turned
the machine back on while she was taking her
hand out. Prince’s hand was injured. She has
sued the manufacturer of the machine,
Southern Snow Manufacturing. Prince alleges
the machine was defective and unreasonably
dangerous and that the defects caused her
harm.

Southern Snow responds that there

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-3-

wasn’t anything wrong with the machine, that
there were adequate warning labels, and that
Prince was at fault. The jury will have to
decide what caused the injury. It will also have
to decide whether the machine was defective
and unreasonably dangerous and whether
there were adequate warnings. And the jury
will also have to decide whether Prince was at
fault, and if so, how much.

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-4-

•

Introductions
—

Plaintiff Samantha Prince.
Lawyers = Tim Cullen and Conrad
Odom.

—

Southern

Defendant

Snow

Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Lawyers = Mark Andrews.
—

Witnesses.
Possible Witnesses

Samantha Prince

Milton G. “Bubby” Wendling,
Jr.

Wayne Prince

Jimmy Milloway

John Hamilton, P.E.
•

Know parties? Lawyers? Witnesses?

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-5-

B.

Call Eighteen, But All — Notepads

C.

General Background Questions
•

Legal training or experience?

•

Know other panel members?

•

Prior jury service?

•

Prior court experience? Sued or been sued?
Witness?

•

Religious convictions against sitting in
judgment?

•

Negative feelings about civil justice system?
—

Too many lawsuits?

—

If sue, then win?

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-6-

D.

Case-Specific Questions
Remember, answer about you and your immediate
family

•

Any involvement or experience in selling snow
cones?

•

Worked at a snow cone stand?

•

Any experience with a machine that shaves ice?

•

Been injured in an accident involving a
machine?

•

Been involved in lawsuit about an allegedly
defective product?

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-7-

E.

Juror Question Time

F.

The Unasked Question?

G.

Lawyer’s thoughts on Follow-Up Questions. F.R.C.P.
47(a).

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-8-

H.

Strikes for Cause. FRCP 47(c).1

1

Rule 47. Selecting Jurors
(a) EXAMINING JURORS. The court may permit the parties
or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors or may itself
do so. If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the
parties or their attorneys to make any further inquiry it
considers proper, or must itself ask any of their additional
questions it considers proper.
(b) PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. The court must allow the
number of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1870.
(c) EXCUSING A JUROR. During trial or deliberation, the
court may excuse a juror for good cause.
Allen v. Brown Clinic, PLLP, 531 F.3d 568, 572 (8th Cir. 2008)
“To challenge a juror for cause, a party must show actual
partiality growing out of the nature and circumstances of the
case. A district court is required to strike for cause any juror
who is shown to lack impartiality or the appearance of
impartiality, and, absent abuse of discretion, we will not
interfere with the district court’s determination of juror
qualifications. The district court is given broad discretion in
determining whether to strike jurors for cause because it is in
the best position to assess the demeanor and credibility of the
prospective jurors.” (quotations omitted)
Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-9-

I.

Peremptory Challenges. FRCP 47(b).2

•

Three each side

2

28 U.S.C. § 1870
“In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three
peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs
may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making
challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory
challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or
jointly.
All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or
panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the
Court.”
Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-10-

•

Challenging Strikes. Race or Gender? Batson.3

3

Three-part test.
“In order to succeed on a Batson challenge, a party must
satisfy a three-part test. First, an objecting party must make a
prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge was made on
the basis of race. Second, if a prima facie showing has been
made, the party striking the juror must offer a race-neutral
basis for striking the juror in question. Third, the trial court
must determine whether the objecting party has proven the
ultimate question of purposeful discrimination.” Cook v. City of
Bella Villa, 582 F.3d 840, 854 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotations
omitted).
“We . . . strongly urge the district courts to make on-therecord rulings articulating the reasoning underlying a
determination on a Batson objection.” Ibid. (quotation omitted).
Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-11-

J.

Seat and Swear Jury
“You and each of you do solemnly swear or affirm to well
and truly try the matter now on trial and render a true
verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you
God.”

K.

Thanks and Goodbye venire

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 November 2016

Prince v. Southern Snow Manufacturing
No. 4:14-cv-31-DPM

-12-