O'Dell v. Miller, 211 W. Va. 285

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a medical malpractice verdict and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly refused to strike a prospective juror for cause. The prospective juror was both a former patient of the defendant physician and a current client of the law firm representing the defendants. The court held that trial courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, resolve doubts about impartiality in favor of excusing the juror, and may not rehabilitate a juror who has clearly expressed disqualifying bias.

Holdings

1. When considering whether to excuse a prospective juror for cause, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances and grounds relating to the challenge, conduct a full inquiry, and resolve doubts in favor of excusing the juror.
2. Once a prospective juror makes a clear statement during voir dire reflecting or indicating the presence of disqualifying prejudice or bias, the juror is disqualified as a matter of law and cannot be rehabilitated through subsequent questioning, retractions, or promises to be fair.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike the prospective juror for cause, and the refusal denied O'Dell the constitutional right to a fair and unbiased jury and required reversal of the verdict and a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike for cause a prospective juror who was a former patient of a defendant physician and a current client of the law firm representing the defendants.
2. What standard governs a trial court's evaluation of possible juror bias or prejudice during voir dire.
3. Whether a prospective juror who makes a clear statement indicating disqualifying bias or prejudice may be rehabilitated by later questioning or promises to be fair.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded