A $14.9 Million verdict was recently overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that there was error on part of the trial judge in the jury selection process. The Michigan Supreme Court also inferred in its opinion that the trial judge overseeing the case could be in hot water with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission as a result of his conduct.
This case arose out of an auto accident on an icy road while Anthony and Shirley Pellegrino were riding as passengers in an airport shuttle. Anthony suffered severe injuries, while his wife Shirley died. The only issue at trial was the amount of damages, because the defendant had admitted liability.
Prior to voir dire (the selection and empanelling of the jury) the judge directed the parties that he sought to have a “jury that represented the racial composition of [Wayne] [C]ounty.” It was a goal of the trial court to use race as a factor in determining which members of the jury pool would be permitted to serve on the jury.
During voir dire, Defendant sought to dismiss an African American female by using a peremptory challenge. In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel objected under the grounds that a peremptory challenge may not be exercised on the basis of race. Defense counsel argued that his challenge was not racially motivated, and instead was based on the fact that the prospective juror “wanted to excuse Greene because she had been widowed two times and was in the process of grieving over her dead mother.” The trial court denied Defendant’s right to use the peremptory challenge without making any findings about the Defendant’s motivation. The trial judge used the prospective juror’s race as his sole basis in determining whether to uphold Plaintiff’s objection. The judge denied the peremptory challenge in order to maintain his desired racial composition of the jury.
Michigan law is clear that race may not be used as a factor in peremptory challenges, even by the trial court. The Michigan Supreme Court held that a judge “may not deny a party the use of a peremptory challenge on the basis of the court’s desire to attain a racially proportionate jury.”
The Michigan Supreme Court also discussed the various violations of the trial judge. Particularly disturbing to the Supreme Court was the fact that the trial judge indicated that “he would continue to apply his own personal view of the law, rather than the law of this state, until ‘either removed from the bench by the disciplinary committee or ordered to have a new trial.’”
The Michigan Supreme Court determined that on retrial, another judge would hear the case.
This article was written by Matthew Ehrlich, Legal Clerk at Demorest Law Firm.
