Preview
23.\
AS C40
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, SS. HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. NO. 1680CV00010
JERZYR. BIELSKI,
Plaintiff
JAMES B. CROCKER and CROCKER HAMPSHIRE SUPERIC AT
COMMUNICATION, INC.
Defendants
iSEP
2 9 2017 {
Vv.
mh ; HRY
ar JEKANOWSKI Ay
JAMES J. RUTTER, MAGISTRATE
Third Party Defendant
DE! ITI TPF’S MOTION FOR A’
CONDU: L VOIR DIRE
NOW COMES the Third-Party Defendant, James J. Rutter, and heteby respectfully request
that this Honotable Court DENY the PlaintifPs Motion for Attommey Conducted Panel Voir Dire of
the Jury Venire. As grounds therefore, the Defendant, through counsel, states that the nature and
setiousness of the case and the length of the anticipated evidence does not justify the Panel Voir
Die procedure. Further, Defendant states that the proposed procedure and Jevel of questioning is
unecessary in a case such as this and will only act to confuse the jury. In further support, the
Defendant states the following:
I. FACTS:
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about January 14, 2013
on North King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that employees of the
Defendants James B. Crocker and Crocker Communication, Inc., negligently operated 2 motor
vehicle causing a motor vehicle accident with the Plaintiff Plaintiff is now bringing this claim
alleging personal injuries as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident. Defendant, however,
denies plaintiffs allegations, and denies that any action or inaction on the part of defendants caused
or contributed to the plaintiffs injuries. Further, the defendants allege that the accident was in part
ot in whole the result of the plaintiff's negligence, andas a result, plaintiffis not entitledto damages,
ot alternative, entitled to less damapes that plaintiff is seeking
I. ARGUMENT:
a. Panel Voir Dire as Requested by the Plaintiffis Inappropriate Given the Facts
of the Instant Matter and the Reality that Panel Voir Dire is Likely to Last
Longer than the Presentation of Evidence.
Chief Justice Judith Fabricant’s memorandum outlining the new voir dire procedures
effective February 2, 2015, and applicable to all counties, helps to guide the court’s discretion in this
matter’ (Relevant Portions Attached as Exhibit “A” Chief Justice, Judith Fabticant, Partigpation in
Juror Voir Dire by Attorneys and SelfRepresented Parties). In part, Chief Justice Fabricant stated, “the trial
judge may permit counsel... to question jurors as a group, in a so-called “panel voir dire”
procedure.” (Exhibit A, 6(b)). In addition, the “trial judge may set a reasonable time limit for
questioning of prospective jurors by attomeys... giving due regard to (1) the objective of
identification of inappropriate bias in fairness to all parties; (2) the interests of the public and of the
parties in reasonable expedition, in proportion to the nature and seriousness of the case and the
length of the anticipated evidence, and (3) the needs of the cases scheduled in other sessions
drawing on the same jury pool for access to prospective jurors.” (emphasis added)(ExhibitA, q 8).
‘The present matter atises out of a moderate impact motor vehicle accident where the issue
of comparative negligence is contested.. This trial does not present unique questions of law. In
addition, this trial is likely to span two to three days with approximately 7-8 fact witnesses. However,
the majority of these witnesses will be very brief, with the exception of the two drivers. Neither
Plaintiff nor Defendant have identified an expert witness for trial at this time. As such, the evidence
Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that any prejudice of potential jurors that may exist can
be exposed and tested through individual voir dire, and does not require additional taxing on the
Court’s time, nor the resources of the jury pool The questioning of individual jurors penmits an
open and honest exchange without the “peer pressute” effect inherent in panel questioning. Jurors
are able to speak their minds more freely if the discussion is at sidebar. ‘Thetefore, this type of
individual questioning
will not unduly extend the time for jury selection.
IIL CONCLUSION:
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this court
1. DENY the Plaintiffs Motion for Attomey Conducted Panel Voir Dire of the Jury Venire.
2. In the alternative, should the court allow the Plaintiff's request for attorney conducted voir
dice, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Proposed Attorney Conducted Voir Dire Questions (PlaintifPs
Exhibit 2) as follows:
a Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5: Defendant objects as these questions are substantially similar
and redundant.
i. Plaintiff proposes question: How do you feel about people filing lawsuits?
Number 4: Defendant objects to this question as it is not neutrally stated.
i Plaintiff proposes question: What is your opinion about lawyers?
Numbers 6, 7, 8: Defendant objects to these questions as they are substantially
similar and redundant.
i. Plaindff proposes question: How to you feel about awarding someone
money for a lawsuit?
Number 9: No objection.
.
e. Numbers 10, 11, 12: Defendant objects to these questions as insurance is not
admissible at trial and this highlights the topic of insurance for the joty. The
ptejudicial effect of these questions outweighs the benefit.
3. Additionally, should the court allow the Plaintiffs request for attomey conducted voir dire,
Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Proposed Topics for Attomey Conducted Voir Dire (Plaintiff's
Exhibit 3) as follows:
a, Preponderance of the evidence standard, This is better left to be explained by the
presiding judge, as it is not the place of an attomey to explain the law, but rather how
the facts fit into the law.
Respectfully Submitted,
The third-party defendant, James Rutter
By his Attorney:
' ’
iC. Benedetti, Esquire
Law Offices of Sherry, Black, Geller,
Cain & Vachereau
10 St. James Avenue, 5* Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 236-1900
BBO No.: 568948
Kaci
Benedetri(@libertymutual.com
a
TEI E OF SERVICE
I, KaciC. Benedetti, Attorney for the third-party defendant, hereby certify that I have this
oy served a copy of the foregoing document by mailing a copy of same postage prepaid, directed
FE! TOP) 'S Mi 0) R. 'ORNEY
CONDUCTED
PANEL VOIR DIRE
Dated: 9/22/17
C. Benedetti, Eshuire
Preview
23.\ AS C40 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE, SS. HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO. 1680CV00010 JERZYR. BIELSKI, Plaintiff JAMES B. CROCKER and CROCKER HAMPSHIRE SUPERIC AT COMMUNICATION, INC. Defendants iSEP 2 9 2017 { Vv. mh ; HRY ar JEKANOWSKI Ay JAMES J. RUTTER, MAGISTRATE Third Party Defendant DE! ITI TPF’S MOTION FOR A’ CONDU: L VOIR DIRE NOW COMES the Third-Party Defendant, James J. Rutter, and heteby respectfully request that this Honotable Court DENY the PlaintifPs Motion for Attommey Conducted Panel Voir Dire of the Jury Venire. As grounds therefore, the Defendant, through counsel, states that the nature and setiousness of the case and the length of the anticipated evidence does not justify the Panel Voir Die procedure. Further, Defendant states that the proposed procedure and Jevel of questioning is unecessary in a case such as this and will only act to confuse the jury. In further support, the Defendant states the following: I. FACTS: This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about January 14, 2013 on North King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that employees of the Defendants James B. Crocker and Crocker Communication, Inc., negligently operated 2 motor vehicle causing a motor vehicle accident with the Plaintiff Plaintiff is now bringing this claim alleging personal injuries as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident. Defendant, however, denies plaintiffs allegations, and denies that any action or inaction on the part of defendants caused or contributed to the plaintiffs injuries. Further, the defendants allege that the accident was in part ot in whole the result of the plaintiff's negligence, andas a result, plaintiffis not entitledto damages, ot alternative, entitled to less damapes that plaintiff is seeking I. ARGUMENT: a. Panel Voir Dire as Requested by the Plaintiffis Inappropriate Given the Facts of the Instant Matter and the Reality that Panel Voir Dire is Likely to Last Longer than the Presentation of Evidence. Chief Justice Judith Fabricant’s memorandum outlining the new voir dire procedures effective February 2, 2015, and applicable to all counties, helps to guide the court’s discretion in this matter’ (Relevant Portions Attached as Exhibit “A” Chief Justice, Judith Fabticant, Partigpation in Juror Voir Dire by Attorneys and SelfRepresented Parties). In part, Chief Justice Fabricant stated, “the trial judge may permit counsel... to question jurors as a group, in a so-called “panel voir dire” procedure.” (Exhibit A, 6(b)). In addition, the “trial judge may set a reasonable time limit for questioning of prospective jurors by attomeys... giving due regard to (1) the objective of identification of inappropriate bias in fairness to all parties; (2) the interests of the public and of the parties in reasonable expedition, in proportion to the nature and seriousness of the case and the length of the anticipated evidence, and (3) the needs of the cases scheduled in other sessions drawing on the same jury pool for access to prospective jurors.” (emphasis added)(ExhibitA, q 8). ‘The present matter atises out of a moderate impact motor vehicle accident where the issue of comparative negligence is contested.. This trial does not present unique questions of law. In addition, this trial is likely to span two to three days with approximately 7-8 fact witnesses. However, the majority of these witnesses will be very brief, with the exception of the two drivers. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have identified an expert witness for trial at this time. As such, the evidence Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that any prejudice of potential jurors that may exist can be exposed and tested through individual voir dire, and does not require additional taxing on the Court’s time, nor the resources of the jury pool The questioning of individual jurors penmits an open and honest exchange without the “peer pressute” effect inherent in panel questioning. Jurors are able to speak their minds more freely if the discussion is at sidebar. ‘Thetefore, this type of individual questioning will not unduly extend the time for jury selection. IIL CONCLUSION: WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this court 1. DENY the Plaintiffs Motion for Attomey Conducted Panel Voir Dire of the Jury Venire. 2. In the alternative, should the court allow the Plaintiff's request for attorney conducted voir dice, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Proposed Attorney Conducted Voir Dire Questions (PlaintifPs Exhibit 2) as follows: a Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5: Defendant objects as these questions are substantially similar and redundant. i. Plaintiff proposes question: How do you feel about people filing lawsuits? Number 4: Defendant objects to this question as it is not neutrally stated. i Plaintiff proposes question: What is your opinion about lawyers? Numbers 6, 7, 8: Defendant objects to these questions as they are substantially similar and redundant. i. Plaindff proposes question: How to you feel about awarding someone money for a lawsuit? Number 9: No objection. . e. Numbers 10, 11, 12: Defendant objects to these questions as insurance is not admissible at trial and this highlights the topic of insurance for the joty. The ptejudicial effect of these questions outweighs the benefit. 3. Additionally, should the court allow the Plaintiffs request for attomey conducted voir dire, Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Proposed Topics for Attomey Conducted Voir Dire (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3) as follows: a, Preponderance of the evidence standard, This is better left to be explained by the presiding judge, as it is not the place of an attomey to explain the law, but rather how the facts fit into the law. Respectfully Submitted, The third-party defendant, James Rutter By his Attorney: ' ’ iC. Benedetti, Esquire Law Offices of Sherry, Black, Geller, Cain & Vachereau 10 St. James Avenue, 5* Floor Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 236-1900 BBO No.: 568948 Kaci Benedetri(@libertymutual.com a TEI E OF SERVICE I, KaciC. Benedetti, Attorney for the third-party defendant, hereby certify that I have this oy served a copy of the foregoing document by mailing a copy of same postage prepaid, directed FE! TOP) 'S Mi 0) R. 'ORNEY CONDUCTED PANEL VOIR DIRE Dated: 9/22/17 C. Benedetti, Eshuire