A woman was dressed as an animal character in a parade. She stepped to her right to work the crowd, then moved to her left in front of a car following her in the parade. The car ran over her left foot. She sued the driver, and lost in a jury trial. She then appealed.
The sole issue on appeal was the time limit the trial court placed on jury selection (“voir dire”). The court initially gave each side two rounds of voir dire – a first round of 20 minutes, followed by a second round of 15 minutes. The court granted the injured woman’s attorney more time to question the potential jurors, because of time spent on challenges for cause. The injured woman’s attorney did not ask for more time at the close of voir dire.
Civil trial by jury is a right that is well established under both the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution.[1] The right to a jury trial includes the right to an unbiased and unprejudiced jury.[2] The primary purpose of voir dire is to allow the parties to explore prospective jurors’ attitudes to determine whether the juror should be challenged.[3] The test is whether the court permitted the parties to “ferret out bias and partiality.”[4]
The Court distinguished this case from State v. Brady – a complex case in which the trial court in the middle of voir dire eliminated one of the two planned voir dire sessions, thereby removing the chance for some attorneys to ask the questions they had reserved for the second session. In contrast, this case was not complex and the trial court did not eliminate time, and in fact granted more time as needed.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court.[5]