Williams v. Osking
105 So. 3d 653
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gregory Williams appeals the denial of his motion to strike the jury panel after a potential juror commented about Williams’s medical witness.
- The trial court conducted individual, sequestered examinations of each prospective juror; all served jurors stated the comment would not affect their judgment.
- The case stems from a boating collision where Williams allegedly steered into Osking’s sailboat, injuring Osking’s back.
- Trial addressed comparative fault, damages, and the impact on Osking’s pre-existing spinal condition; one Williams witness evaluated Osking’s injuries.
- During voir dire, a juror who knew the medical witness made a remark; the court denied striking the entire panel but struck that juror for cause.
- After extensive sequestered questioning, jurors who served could disregard the comment; Williams renewed the strike request, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the denial of striking the panel an abuse of discretion? | Williams argues bias tainted the panel and seeks strike. | Court properly used individualized inquiry to ensure fairness. | No abuse; procedures safeguarded fairness. |
| Does a juror’s statement about a witness differ from a statement about the defendant for bias purposes? | Comment about Williams’s witness could bias verdict. | Comment targeted witness, not defendant; bias not proven. | Distinction supported; no reversible bias shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brower v. State, 727 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirmed use of extensive, individual sequestered voir dire to protect rights)
- Wilding v. State, 427 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (distinguishes opinion-vs-fact statements in juror comments)