Washoe Medical Center

Case 1: Washoe Medical Center

In my opinion the appellate court should agree with the plaintiffs. The trial judge's conduct was inappropriate and potentially prejudicial and the case should be remanded for a new trial before a different judge. I also think that an appeal should be granted on the grounds that the prosecuting attorney’s responsibility was to call for the dismissal of the unfairly behaving jurors during the voir dire (jury selection) process prior to the trial commencing. “During voir dire, when the plaintiffs’ attorney returned a few minutes late from a break, the trial judge led the prospective jurors in a standing ovation. The judge joked with one of the prospective jurors, whom he had known in college about his fitness to serve as a judge and personally endorsed another prospective juror’s business” (Motion for a New Trial, p. 72).

The average juror is a layman – not an expert in a given field of knowledge. “The average layman defers with respect to the judge; and the jury is, as a rule, alert to any remark that will indicate favor or disfavor on the part of the judge” (www.leagle.com). An opinion is often formed on circumstances that may appear insignificant, and the words of a trial judge can influence jury’s opinion and decision.

It is the responsibility of the court and the judge to conduct a fair and just proceeding but it is also the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney to uphold each other and the judge to that fair and just practice. The appellate court should see through reviewing the case that multiple jurors were biased by the judge if not all the jurors by endorsing companies, fraternizing with old classmates, joking about his ability to command a courtroom and leading the jurors in a standing ovation. All of these actions were highly unethical in a court room and also the fact that they were not addressed as they occurred is also reason enough for an appellate review.

Case 2: Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc.

Issue: On what...