A dramatic courtroom moment occurred when a juror’s outburst led to a contentious legal battle over potential juror misconduct. The case, filed by Elizabeth Soloway as the personal representative of the plaintiff in the San Francisco City & County Superior Court on September 13, 2024, involves allegations against Prima Medical Group and Dr. Stahl.
The lawsuit centers around claims that Dr. Stahl negligently clipped and cut the wrong artery and vein during a colectomy, causing further harm to the patient. Despite extensive evidence and expert testimony presented by both sides, the jury returned a close 9-8 verdict in favor of the defendants. During closing arguments, as defense counsel concluded with an emotional appeal for justice, Juror No. 5 exclaimed, “I agree,” sparking immediate controversy.
Plaintiff Hill promptly filed a motion to discharge Juror No. 5 for misconduct, arguing that her statement indicated she had prejudged the case before deliberations began. The trial court held a hearing where Juror No. 5 affirmed she had followed instructions to keep an open mind and was deliberating impartially. Despite acknowledging that expressing an opinion before deliberations is inappropriate, the court denied Hill’s motion to remove the juror and later rejected Hill’s subsequent motion for a new trial.
Hill’s argument hinged on declarations from multiple individuals who heard Juror No. 5's comment during closing arguments. Hill contended this demonstrated actual bias and created a presumption of prejudice, especially given the narrow margin of the defense verdict. However, defendants argued that Juror No. 5 credibly affirmed her impartiality during questioning by the court.
The trial court's decision to deny both motions was based on its finding that Juror No. 5 adhered to instructions and maintained an open mind throughout deliberations despite her earlier comment. The court noted that jurors often form preliminary opinions during trials but can still deliberate fairly if they remain open to discussion with fellow jurors.
Ultimately, the appellate court upheld these decisions, emphasizing that credible allegations of juror misconduct require thorough investigation but also recognizing that human nature allows for changing opinions throughout a trial process without necessarily indicating bias or prejudgment.
The judgment was affirmed by Judge Douglas with concurrence from Judges Brown and Streeter under Case ID A165639.