J.T. ex rel. Taylor v. Anbari
442 S.W.3d 49
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2009 the Taylors sued two physicians and a radiology practice for negligence, alleging failure to diagnose May-Thurner syndrome and improper anticoagulation that led to the mother’s cerebral bleed and death in 2008.
- A jury trial resulted in a defense verdict; the Taylors moved for a new trial alleging juror issues and a discriminatory peremptory strike.
- Three post-trial challenges were raised: (1) a Batson challenge to the defendants’ peremptory strike of venireperson Sonja Howard (African‑American); (2) nondisclosure by juror Barbara Gurley of prior stents for herself and her husband; and (3) juror Randall Doennig’s Facebook posts during trial.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings on the new-trial motion, found the defendants’ proffered reasons for the strike race-neutral, found Gurley’s nondisclosure unintentional or based on a reasonable misunderstanding, and found Doennig’s social-media posts did not disclose extrinsic facts or prejudice either party.
- The appellate court affirmed, applying deferential review to the Batson credibility finding and abuse-of-discretion review to the nondisclosure and juror-misconduct rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike of Howard | Strike was race-motivated; proffered reasons were pretextual | Struck Howard because she was a single mother, had personal experience with blood clots, and had legal training (paralegal) — race-neutral reasons related to case issues | Denied — court found reasons race-neutral and Taylors failed to prove pretext |
| Juror nondisclosure (Gurley) | Gurley failed to disclose that she and her husband had arterial stents, warranting new trial | Question was ambiguous and focused on leg clots; Gurley reasonably misunderstood and stents were remote in time | Denied — question not clearly understood as covering remote cardiac stents; nondisclosure was unintentional and not prejudicial |
| Juror misconduct (Doennig Facebook posts) | Doennig posted during trial and failed to follow court instruction, creating prejudice and appearance of impropriety | Posts only stated he was on jury duty and did not reveal case details or receive extrinsic facts; no prejudice shown | Denied — posts did not communicate extrinsic evidence or trial details and did not prejudice either side |
Key Cases Cited
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (race-neutral explanation framework for Batson analysis)
- State v. Brooks, 980 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1998) (deferential review of trial court Batson credibility findings)
- Goodman v. Angle, 342 S.W.3d 458 (Mo.App.W.D. 2011) (Batson three-step analysis and factors for pretext)
- State v. Marlowe, 89 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. banc 2002) (importance of similarly situated jurors in Batson analysis)
- Williams By & Through Wilford v. Barnes Hosp., 736 S.W.2d 38 (Mo. banc 1987) (duty of jurors to answer voir dire fully and truthfully)
- Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 820 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005) (threshold clarity of voir dire question for nondisclosure claims)
- Johnson v. McCullough, 306 S.W.3d 551 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for reviewing intentionality of nondisclosure)
- Saint Louis Univ. v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. banc 2009) (analysis of jury process integrity and new-trial standard)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013) (tests for intentional vs. unintentional nondisclosure)
- Miles v. Dennis, 853 S.W.2d 406 (Mo.App.W.D. 1993) (juror contact/misconduct principles)
- McBride v. Farley, 154 S.W.3d 404 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004) (extrinsic facts communicated to jurors require new trial)
- Khoury v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 368 S.W.3d 189 (Mo.App.W.D. 2012) (juror social-media activity may warrant exclusion where content bears on impartiality)