Preview
1 Christopher Hiddleson, State Bar No. 137589
MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
2 Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
3 655 North Central Avenue, 12 th Floor
Glendale, California 91203-1434
4 Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606
E-Mail Address: Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com
5
6 Attorneys for defendant Amy Thomas McGuire
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION
10
11 Annette Chavez, ) NO. BCV-23-100045
) Complaint Filed: January 4, 2023
12 Plaintiff, ) Judge: T. Mark Smith
) Department: T-2
13 v. ) Trial Date: June 3, 2024
)
14 Amy Thomas McGuire, DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, ) FSC: May 24, 2024
) Time: 1:30 p.m.
15 Defendants. ) Dept.: T-2
)
16 ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
) NO. 2 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING
17 ) PLAINTIFF FROM
) PRECONDITIONING THE JURY
18 _____________________________________________________________ )
19
20
21 I.
22 IT IS IMPROPER TO USE VOIR DIRE TO PRECONDITION
23 PROSPECTIVE JURORS
24
25 Defendant anticipates plaintiff Annette Chavez will seek to precondition prospective
26 jurors regarding the value of her case. The purpose of voir dire is to ensure the selection of
27 jurors who are fair and who do not have preconceived notions of the facts or the parties. (Sweet
28 v. Stutch (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 891, 894.) But voir dire is not meant to be a process by which
-1-
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO
1 attorneys educate prospective jurors about the case, compel jurors to commit themselves to a
2 particular disposition of the matter, prejudice jurors for or against a party, to argue the case, to
3 indoctrinate the jury, or instruct jurors on matters of law. (Rousseau v. West Coast House
4 Movers (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 878, 882-883.) Thus, any question whose sole purpose is to
5 “attempt to precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result” is improper. (Wegner et al.,
6 Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group October 2021) Scope of
7 Permissible Voir Dire—Proper vs. Improper Questions, ¶¶ 5:324, citing CRC Standards of Jud.
8 Admin., Standard 3.25(f).) For example, it is not proper to ask for a prospective juror’s
9 commitment to award a certain sum. (Id., at ¶ 5.326.) And it is not proper to question
10 prospective jurors as to their ability to return a large verdict if a large verdict is not supported by
11 the evidence. (Id., at ¶ 5:312.)
12
13 “[A]n ‘improper question’ is any question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to
14 precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or question the
15 prospective jurors concerning the pleadings or the applicable law.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
16 222.5(b)(3).) Thus, examination of prospective jurors may not be used to:
17
18 • Educate the jury panel to the particular facts of the case;
19 • Compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular way;
20 • Prejudice the jury for or against a particular party;
21 • Argue the case;
22 • Indoctrinate the jury; and
23 • Instruct the jury in matters of law .
24 (Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 482, 493.)
25
26 It “is not ‘a function of the examination of prospective jurors to educate the jury panel to
27 the particular facts of the case, to compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular
28 way, to prejudice the jury for or against a particular party, to argue the case, to indoctrinate the
-2-
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO
1 jury, or to instruct the jury in matters of law.’” (Alcazar v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
2 (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 86, 97, original emphasis; see also People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1,
3 47-48.) Moreover, it is “not a proper object of voir dire to obtain a juror’s advisory opinion
4 based upon a preview of the evidence.” (Alcazar, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 97, citing People
5 v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 860.) Rather, the only proper purpose of voir dire is to
6 determine “whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an ‘open mind’ on
7 the issues presented.” (Alcazar, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 97.)
8
CONCLUSION
9
10
For the above reasons, defendant respectfully requests this Court issue an order
11
prohibiting plaintiff and her counsel from preconditioning jurors during voir dire.
12
13
DATED: May 16, 2024
14
MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
15
16
17
By:
18 Christopher Hiddleson
Attorneys for defendant Amy Thomas McGuire
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO
Preview
1 Christopher Hiddleson, State Bar No. 137589 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES 2 Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 3 655 North Central Avenue, 12 th Floor Glendale, California 91203-1434 4 Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606 E-Mail Address: Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com 5 6 Attorneys for defendant Amy Thomas McGuire 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION 10 11 Annette Chavez, ) NO. BCV-23-100045 ) Complaint Filed: January 4, 2023 12 Plaintiff, ) Judge: T. Mark Smith ) Department: T-2 13 v. ) Trial Date: June 3, 2024 ) 14 Amy Thomas McGuire, DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, ) FSC: May 24, 2024 ) Time: 1:30 p.m. 15 Defendants. ) Dept.: T-2 ) 16 ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE ) NO. 2 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING 17 ) PLAINTIFF FROM ) PRECONDITIONING THE JURY 18 _____________________________________________________________ ) 19 20 21 I. 22 IT IS IMPROPER TO USE VOIR DIRE TO PRECONDITION 23 PROSPECTIVE JURORS 24 25 Defendant anticipates plaintiff Annette Chavez will seek to precondition prospective 26 jurors regarding the value of her case. The purpose of voir dire is to ensure the selection of 27 jurors who are fair and who do not have preconceived notions of the facts or the parties. (Sweet 28 v. Stutch (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 891, 894.) But voir dire is not meant to be a process by which -1- DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO 1 attorneys educate prospective jurors about the case, compel jurors to commit themselves to a 2 particular disposition of the matter, prejudice jurors for or against a party, to argue the case, to 3 indoctrinate the jury, or instruct jurors on matters of law. (Rousseau v. West Coast House 4 Movers (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 878, 882-883.) Thus, any question whose sole purpose is to 5 “attempt to precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result” is improper. (Wegner et al., 6 Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group October 2021) Scope of 7 Permissible Voir Dire—Proper vs. Improper Questions, ¶¶ 5:324, citing CRC Standards of Jud. 8 Admin., Standard 3.25(f).) For example, it is not proper to ask for a prospective juror’s 9 commitment to award a certain sum. (Id., at ¶ 5.326.) And it is not proper to question 10 prospective jurors as to their ability to return a large verdict if a large verdict is not supported by 11 the evidence. (Id., at ¶ 5:312.) 12 13 “[A]n ‘improper question’ is any question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to 14 precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or question the 15 prospective jurors concerning the pleadings or the applicable law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 16 222.5(b)(3).) Thus, examination of prospective jurors may not be used to: 17 18 • Educate the jury panel to the particular facts of the case; 19 • Compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular way; 20 • Prejudice the jury for or against a particular party; 21 • Argue the case; 22 • Indoctrinate the jury; and 23 • Instruct the jury in matters of law . 24 (Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 482, 493.) 25 26 It “is not ‘a function of the examination of prospective jurors to educate the jury panel to 27 the particular facts of the case, to compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular 28 way, to prejudice the jury for or against a particular party, to argue the case, to indoctrinate the -2- DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO 1 jury, or to instruct the jury in matters of law.’” (Alcazar v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. 2 (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 86, 97, original emphasis; see also People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 3 47-48.) Moreover, it is “not a proper object of voir dire to obtain a juror’s advisory opinion 4 based upon a preview of the evidence.” (Alcazar, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 97, citing People 5 v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 860.) Rather, the only proper purpose of voir dire is to 6 determine “whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an ‘open mind’ on 7 the issues presented.” (Alcazar, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 97.) 8 CONCLUSION 9 10 For the above reasons, defendant respectfully requests this Court issue an order 11 prohibiting plaintiff and her counsel from preconditioning jurors during voir dire. 12 13 DATED: May 16, 2024 14 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES 15 16 17 By: 18 Christopher Hiddleson Attorneys for defendant Amy Thomas McGuire 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO