RRD Wins Supreme Court Reversal Reinstating Defense Verdict in Malpractice Case and Announces New Rule Regarding Jurors’ Exposure to Media

In a case argued by RRD partner Rob Laney, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently reversed an Appellate Court ruling and reinstated a defense verdict obtained by Ryan Ryan Deluca on behalf of a psychiatric hospital in a case arising out of a suicide by a patient.  The case is notable because as part of its ruling the Supreme Court issued a new rule governing jury selection in all trial courts in the state of Connecticut. 

RRD partner Catherine Nietzel tried the case in 2007 the jury returned a verdict finding that the hospital did not deviate from the requisite standard of care.  Jury selection for the case took three weeks.  After completion of jury selection and just prior to the start of evidence, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about the decedent’s suicide and the resulting lawsuit.  Plaintiff’s counsel asked the court to poll the jury to determine whether any of them had read the article prior to the start of the evidence.  The trial court denied this request, in part because the jurors had been advised by the jury clerk during the jury selection process to avoid any media accounts about the case.  The court also repeatedly instructed the jury throughout the trial that it could only decide the case based upon evidence presented during the trial.

After the defense verdict, the plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by not polling the jury “in light of the inflammatory nature of the article and the potential prejudice and undue influence that exposure [to it] would have on the jury.”  The Supreme Court granted the firm’s petition for review of that ruling.  RRD’s Lauren Abbate participated in the writing of the petition for review and subsequent briefs filed with the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous opinion released on August 13, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Appellate Court and ordered that judgment be entered in the hospital’s favor in accordance with the jury’s verdict.  The Supreme Court held that the jury clerk’s instructions given to potential jurors during jury selection to avoid extraneous sources of information were sufficient and that, in the absence of any evidence that any jurors read the article, the trial court was within its discretion to deny the request for a poll of the jury. 

However, the court also exercised its inherent supervisory authority over the state’s trial courts to promulgate a new rule.  The new rule requires that the presiding judge instruct all jurors, once selected, either orally or in writing, that (1) it is their sworn duty to decide the facts of the case based only upon evidence presented at trial, (2) that this duty requires the juror to avoid all publicity about the case and all communications with anyone else about the case or the issues involved and (3) if, despite the juror’s best efforts, he or she is exposed to such publicity or communications, the juror will immediately inform the court about such exposure in writing so that the court can follow up, as necessary, to ensure that all parties’ right to a fair trial is protected.