Pegg et al v. Klempa
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 107 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL JURY QUESTIONNAIRES. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/27/2016. (copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (nmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BRANDON PEGG and KRISTINA PEGG,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:13CV173
(STAMP)
NATHAN TYLER KLEMPA, individually and
in his capacity as agent and employee
of the City of Glen Dale Police Department
and GRANT HERRNBERGER, individually and
in his capacity as an agent and employee
of the West Virginia State Police,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR USE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL JURY QUESTIONNAIRES
On September 16, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking
this
Court
to
authorize
the
use
of
a
supplemental
questionnaire to aid jury selection in this civil action.1
defendant filed a response in opposition to this motion.
jury
The
For the
following reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
I.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
asserting various claims arising out of a traffic stop, at which
plaintiff Brandon Pegg was arrested, defendant Grant Herrnberger
(“Herrnberger”) frisked plaintiff Kristina Pegg, and defendant
1
This Court notes that the plaintiffs filed their motion under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(a).
While Criminal Rule
24(a) and Civil Rule 47(a) are substantively similar, this Court’s
authority to conduct voir dire is provided by the civil rule.
Nathan Tyler Klempa (“Klempa”) searched Kristina Pegg’s purse.
This Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as
to all of the Peggs’ claims.
The Peggs appealed the judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the
Fourth Circuit reversed in part and remanded.
Specifically,
Herrnberger
was
the
not
Fourth
entitled
Circuit
to
concluded
qualified
that:
immunity
for
(1)
the
allegedly unlawful frisk of Kristina Pegg; (2) that Klempa was not
entitled to qualified immunity for the unlawful search of Kristina
Pegg’s purse; (3) that the allegedly unlawful frisk of Kristina
Pegg constituted a battery; and (4) that Herrnberger was not
entitled to qualified immunity for that battery.
The Fourth
Circuit affirmed this Court’s grant of summary judgement as to all
other claims.
claims
The parties have since notified this Court that all
against
Klempa
have
been
settled.
Thus,
the
only
outstanding claims are Kristina Pegg’s unlawful detention and
battery claims against Herrnberger for his frisk of her.
The plaintiffs have now filed a motion for the use of a
supplemental jury questionnaire to aid jury selection in this civil
action.
Herrnberger filed a response in opposition to the motion.
II.
Applicable Law
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a) provides courts with
broad discretion on the conduct of jury selection.
“The court may
permit the parties or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors
2
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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(a). Thus, “the
form of voir dire questions to be submitted . . . is committed to
the discretion of the district courts and there is of course no
compulsion
to
[conduct
voir
dire
in
a
manner]
requested
by
counsel.”
Jones v. Wellham, 104 F.3d 620, 630 (4th Cir. 1997).
“Abuse of discretion . . . occurs only if the [court’s conduct of
voir dire] . . . hinders a party’s ability to make reasonable use
of its [peremptory] challenges.”
III.
The
plaintiffs
argue
Id.
Discussion
that
use
of
a
supplemental
jury
questionnaire is necessary to ensure that a fair jury is empaneled
and will allow for more efficient jury selection.
However, the
plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that jury selection without the use
of a supplemental jury questionnaire will hinder the plaintiffs’
ability to make reasonable use of their peremptory challenges or
that a fair jury cannot be selected without such procedure.
The plaintiffs argue that the use of a supplemental jury
questionnaire is necessary here to ensure that prospective jurors
candidly state whether they “will place undue weight on the
testimony of a law enforcement officer merely because a witness is
a law enforcement officer” because this case may “turn[] on the
3
testimony of a law enforcement officer.”
ECF No. 107-1 at 4.
The
plaintiffs rely on empirical and psychological studies arguing that
potential jurors tend to be more candid in answering written
questionnaires than they are in “answering questions in open
court[] in front of their fellow jurors.”
However, a
Id.
supplemental jury questionnaire is not necessary
to ensure sincere responses from prospective jurors.
This Court
may during the conduct of the voir dire procedure meet with
individual prospective jurors outside of the presence of the jury
venire, with counsel present, to obtain further details from that
prospective juror.
Further, the plaintiffs have not submitted a
proposed supplemental jury questionnaire and have not identified
any specific information that they would seek in a questionnaire
that
could
not
be
obtained
through
detailed
voir
dire.
Accordingly, this Court believes that detailed voir dire and the
ability to obtain detailed answers in confidence will be sufficient
to ensure that a fair jury is empaneled.
V.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion for use of
a supplemental jury questionnaire (ECF No. 107) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
4
DATED:
September 27, 2016
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?