The Plaintiffs, daughters of Roylestine Bowman, filed a
medical malpractice action against Defendant Dr. Krishna Dass alleging the
wrongful death of their mother. The matter required a three (3) week trial.
Plaintiffs' claim of a mistrial was based on issues that arose during jury
deliberations. Particularly, Plaintiffs alleged: (1) the jury disregarded the
court's instructions; (2) the court impermissibly revised the verdict sheet
after deliberations had begun; and (3) the verdict was a result of coercion to
end deliberations quickly.
Prior to jury deliberation, the parties agreed to a
two-step verdict sheet as to liability in this medical malpractice case. The
initial question asked if Dr. Dass breached the applicable standard of care
in treating the decedent; the second question asked if such a breach
proximately caused Ms. Bowman's death. After two days of deliberation, the
jury wrote a note to the trial Judge. The note indicated that two members of
the jury would not be available on upcoming days due to a graduation.
Moreover, the jurors indicated that they could not come to a unanimous
decision on question 1 and wanted permission to move forward to question 2.
The trial court informed the jury that they could not
be excused from jury deliberations for graduations. The Judge also
instructed them that they could not move ahead to question 2 without
answering question 1, because the answer to question 1 must be "yes" in
order to get to question 2. The court then gave the jury the District of
Columbia's anti-deadlock instruction from Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d
530 (D.C. 1974).
Later the same day, the jury sent another note asking
if the verdict sheet could be converted from two separate questions to one
question consistent with the D.C. model jury instruction on negligence:
Standardized Civil Jury Instructions For the District of Columbia, No. 9.03
(2002 ed. rev.). The jury proposed the following single question: "Do you
find by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Krishna Dass, M.D.,
breached the applicable standard of care in his treatment of Roylestine
Bowman, and (2) a breach of the standard of care by Krishna Dass, M.D., was
a proximate cause of Roylestine Bowman's death?" The jury indicated it could
come to a unanimous decision on this single question.
The trial court agreed to the jury's request for a
revised question over the Appellants' objection. Shortly thereafter, the
jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendant, Dr. Dass. The
Plaintiffs moved for a mistrial, which was denied.
After noting, "we presume that juries obey and comply
with the court's instructions."
Brown v. National Academy of Sciences, 844 A.2d 1113,
1125 (D.C. 2004), the Court determined that the jury did not disregard the
Court's instructions. In fact, the Court held that the jury's request that
the verdict sheet be revised to match the model instruction was a clear
indication that they took the trial court's instructions seriously.
Similarly, the Court did not find a basis for a mistrial in the revised
verdict sheet. It noted that a trial court has broad discretion in
fashioning appropriate jury instructions, and the revised verdict question
did contain an accurate statement of law.
Importantly, the Court found that "the jury recognized
that appellants had to prove each element by a preponderance of the
evidence. Thus, regardless of whether the jury could
unanimously agree on breach or causation separately, it
could unanimously agree that
appellants failed to prove all the elements of a
medical malpractice claim." Blackwell at *10.
Finally, the Court found there was no basis for
suggesting that the issue of a juror's upcoming absence and the
anti-deadlock instruction had a coercive effect on the jury.
Top
