Hill v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hill v. Brown

808 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2910, 2002 WL 360334

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-2717

StatusPublished

This text of 808 So. 2d 1283 (Hill v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Brown, 808 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2910, 2002 WL 360334 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

Defendants in this civil action moved for a change of venue because of adverse pretrial publicity. Indeed there were considerable prejudicial news accounts relating to the accident, defendant’s conduct, and the criminal charges arising out of it. It may well be that an impartial jury cannot be selected when the time comes to choose a civil jury for this negligence trial.

The trial judge recognized the problem created by the adverse publicity but chose to wait until the civil trial to see if an impartial jury could be found. We believe this “wait and see” attitude is within the discretion of the trial judge and affirm his decision. Obviously, if it appears that a fair jury cannot be selected when the time comes, a transfer will be required. And if the trial court pushes the case to trial with a juror whose impartiality is fairly challenged, the trial may be for naught. Even though this appeal is hereby resolved, the issue of an impartial jury should remain utmost in the trial judge’s mind.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARRIS, J.

Defendants in this civil action moved for a change of venue because of adverse pretrial publicity. Indeed there were considerable prejudicial news accounts relating to the accident, defendant’s conduct, and the criminal charges arising out of it. It may well be that an impartial jury cannot be selected when the time comes to choose a civil jury for this negligence trial.

The trial judge recognized the problem created by the adverse publicity but chose to wait until the civil trial to see if an impartial jury could be found. We believe this “wait and see” attitude is within the discretion of the trial judge and affirm his decision. Obviously, if it appears that a fair jury cannot be selected when the time comes, a transfer will be required. And if the trial court pushes the case to trial with a juror whose impartiality is fairly challenged, the trial may be for naught. Even though this appeal is hereby resolved, the issue of an impartial jury should remain utmost in the trial judge’s mind.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2910, 2002 WL 360334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-brown-fladistctapp-2002.