Kesterson v. Jarrett
291 Ga. 380
Ga.2012Background
- Kyla Kesterson, a child with severe cerebral palsy, was a party in a tort suit against medical providers for alleged negligence at birth.
- The case was bifurcated into liability and damages phases; Kyla’s presence during liability was questioned.
- The trial court excluded Kyla from most of the liability phase to avoid potential jury sympathy and prejudice, allowing limited in-court presence only at certain times.
- Court of Appeals adopted the Sixth Circuit Helminski test to permit exclusion when the plaintiff is severely injured, cannot participate meaningfully, and her presence would bias the jury, but otherwise recognized the right to be present.
- Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that a party may not be excluded from her own trial solely due to potential sympathy and that other remedies (jury instructions, voir dire, evidentiary rulings) protect a fair trial.
- Court remanded for new trial, clarifying that the right to be present is fundamental and not dependent on legal competence, and that exclusion is exceptional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a party be excluded from her own civil trial due to potential sympathy? | Kyla should be present; exclusion violates fundamental right. | Exclusion necessary to protect fair trial given anticipated sympathy biases. | No; exclusion solely for sympathy is improper; right to be present preserved with safeguards. |
| What remedies suffice to ensure a fair trial without excluding the party? | Use instructions and other protections; no need to bar presence. | Traditional protections may be insufficient in highly sympathetic cases. | Jury instructions and other safeguards are adequate; exclusion is not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helminski v. Ayerst Labs., 766 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1985) (test balancing party presence with risk of prejudice)
- Willingham v. Willingham, 192 Ga. 405 (1941) (custody context; unusual character allows different approach)
- Tift v. Jones, 52 Ga. 538 (1874) (court can reconcile right to be present with witness sequestration)
- Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23 (2010) (texts on right to prosecute/defend in person; presence matters)
- Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641 (2011) (due process and right to be present; prejudicial error presumptively prejudicial on direct appeal)