Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit • 2001

Rhodda Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray

248 F.3d 621 | 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 7157

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that when a prospective juror admits a material predisposition and cannot unequivocally assure the court of impartiality, the judge must probe further or excuse the juror; allowing that juror to decide the case requires a new trial.

Background

Rhodda Thompson sued her employer, Altheimer & Gray, under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination. During voir dire, prospective juror Leiter disclosed that she owned businesses and believed that her experience as an employer would “definitely sway” or “cloud” her judgment in an employment-related damages suit. She explained that, as an employer, she regularly had to decide whether employees deserved benefits, positions, or other requests, and she worried that employees who did not get what they wanted might sue.

When asked whether that background might affect her judgment in Thompson’s case, Leiter said she could try to be fair but could not say that her experiences would not cloud her judgment. Thompson challenged Leiter for cause, but the district court denied the challenge. Thompson used her three peremptory challenges on other prospective jurors, and Leiter sat on the eight-person jury.

The jury returned a verdict for Altheimer & Gray. Thompson appealed, arguing that the district court’s refusal to remove Leiter for cause denied her the right to an impartial jury and required a new trial.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Thompson forfeited her objection to Juror Leiter by declining to use a peremptory challenge to remove her.

Holding

No holding on forfeiture was necessary, because Altheimer & Gray did not argue that Thompson’s failure to strike Leiter peremptorily barred her impartial-jury claim; Thompson could not, however, claim a violation of her statutory allotment of three peremptory challenges.

Reasoning

The court distinguished cases in which a party used a peremptory strike to remove a juror whom the trial court should have excused for cause. Under United States v. Martinez-Salazar, using a peremptory challenge in that way does not itself establish a constitutional injury if the jury that ultimately sits is impartial. Those cases do not directly resolve what happens when the challenged juror remains on the jury.

The majority recognized that Martinez-Salazar suggests a litigant may allow a challenged juror to sit and later seek reversal if an adverse verdict follows. The court expressed reservations about the strategic incentives such a rule might create, but declined to address the question because the employer had not argued forfeiture on that ground.

The employer instead argued that Thompson could not complain that she lost any statutory right to three peremptory challenges. The court agreed: Thompson had all three challenges available and chose to use them on other jurors. But that statutory point did not answer the central constitutional question—whether Leiter’s presence deprived Thompson of an impartial tribunal.

Issue #2

Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Thompson’s challenge for cause to Juror Leiter.

Holding

Yes. Leiter’s statements raised a material and contestable concern about impartiality, and the court failed to obtain unequivocal assurances that she could set aside her prior experiences and decide the case fairly.

Reasoning

Review of a ruling on a challenge for cause is deferential, but it is not automatic. Here, no credibility dispute complicated review: Leiter’s answers were candid and undisputed. The question was whether those answers showed a degree of bias requiring her removal or, at minimum, further inquiry before allowing her to serve.

Leiter’s belief that some employees bring meritless claims against employers was not, by itself, disqualifying bias. The court distinguished an ordinary prior belief from bias that prevents a juror from faithfully and impartially applying the law. Jurors inevitably bring prior experiences and general beliefs to a case; they must be removed only when those views are irrational, unshakeable in a legally relevant way, or likely to prevent fair consideration of the evidence.

But Leiter went beyond expressing a general belief about frivolous suits. She repeatedly said that her experience as a business owner would or might “cloud” her judgment. Although she said she would try to be fair, she never assured the court that she could actually suspend her experiences and judge Thompson’s claim on the evidence and instructions alone.

The trial judge should have followed up. He could have asked Leiter individually whether she could defer judgment until hearing the evidence and follow the court’s instructions despite her employer-side experiences. A later question posed to the jury as a group did not cure the problem, especially because Leiter had not first given an individual, unequivocal assurance of impartiality.

The court analogized the situation to Martinez-Salazar, where the prospective juror expressed uncertainty about whether he could be fair and a tendency to favor the prosecution. In both cases, the trial court did not sufficiently probe whether the juror could overcome a material predisposition. Without assurances that Leiter’s belief was “shakable” for purposes of this trial, the court could not have confidence in an unbiased verdict.

Because the denial of an impartial tribunal is a structural trial error, Thompson did not have to prove that Leiter’s presence actually caused the jury to rule for the employer. The verdict therefore could not stand, and the case had to be retried.

Concurrences

Judge Wood

Reasoning

Judge Wood agreed that Thompson was entitled to a new trial because Leiter was seated without the unequivocal assurances of impartiality that the Constitution requires. She wrote separately only to reject the majority’s skepticism about the Supreme Court’s approach to peremptory challenges in Martinez-Salazar.

In her view, once a trial court denies a challenge for cause, counsel should remain free to decide whether to use a peremptory challenge against that juror or against someone else. Appellate courts cannot reliably second-guess that strategic choice, because a lawyer may reasonably believe another juror is more dangerous even if that juror’s bias cannot be established sufficiently to support a challenge for cause.

Judge Wood also emphasized that a party cannot sandbag the trial court under this framework. The party must first raise the challenge for cause, thereby giving the court an opportunity to correct the problem. If the court rejects the challenge, counsel can make an informed strategic decision about the available peremptory strikes, while preserving an impartial-jury challenge if the disputed juror ultimately serves.

She noted a possible qualification where a party does not exhaust its peremptory challenges. A party who leaves a peremptory strike unused after unsuccessfully challenging a juror for cause might, in an appropriate case, be found to have waived the objection. That question was not presented here, because Thompson used all three of her peremptory challenges.