Facts of the Case
Hillary Bouldin’s vehicle collided with Rocky Dietz’s in Montana in 2009. Dietz filed a negligence claim for injuries sustained from the accident. The action was removed to federal court. The parties made stipulations as to past damages, and the jury ruled in Dietz’s favor but awarded $0 in damages. The district court judge dismissed the jury but then reconsidered and re-empaneled the jury. He asked them to re-determine the damages in a manner consistent with the parties’ stipulation. The jury returned the same verdict and awarded $15,000 in damages. On appeal, Dietz claimed that the district court erred by recalling the jury after it had been dismissed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that dismissing the jury, then recalling the jurors, was not an abuse of discretion because the jurors were not exposed to prejudicial influence during the brief duration of their dismissal.
Questions
Can the judge recall jurors for further service in the same case after the judge has discharged a jury from service and the jurors have left the judge’s presence?
Conclusions
-
A federal district court judge has a limited ability to recall jurors in a civil case after identifying an error in their verdict, and that power was not abused in this case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-2 majority. The Court held that, while the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set out many of the powers of a district court judge, they do not establish an exhaustive list. District court judges have some powers that are not enumerated in the Federal Rules, but those powers are limited in that they must be a “reasonable response” to whatever problems are confronting the court and they cannot contradict any other express rule or statute. Based on this analysis, district court judges may recall jurors when they identify an error in the jury’s verdict because this is a more expedient way to resolve the problem than empaneling a whole new jury and re-trying the case, and there is no rule or statute prohibiting such an action. However, a district court judge may only do so when there is no suggestion that the jurors have been prejudiced by their time outside of the jury room. Additionally, this power only exists in civil trials. In this case, the district judge did not abuse its discretion by exercising the limited power to recall the jurors after discovering that their verdict was a legal error.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the common law rule preventing a judge from recalling a jury once the jury has had the opportunity to interact with the public after the conclusion of the case should control in this case. Although jurors are no longer as strictly sequestered as they once were, the prophylactic nature of drawing the rule at the opportunity for prejudice to occur is the most administrable rule that promotes confidence in the justice system. Justice Thomas also argued that the majority’s multi-factor test would create more confusion and therefore more litigation. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined in the dissent.