Dietz v. Bouldin, No. 13-35377 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a negligence suit against defendant, alleging injuries resulting from a car accident. After the jury returned a verdict, the district court discharged them and recessed. After realizing that the verdict was a legal impossibility, the district court quickly called back the jurors, noting for the record that it was doing so moments after having dismissed them. The jury found for plaintiff again but plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court erred by recalling the jury after it had already been dismissed. The court joined the majority of circuit courts and held that a district court may reempanel a jury shortly after dismissal, but only if, during the period of dismissal, the jurors were not exposed to any outside influences that would compromise their ability to fairly reconsider the verdict. In this case, the recall was not an abuse of discretion given the circumstances, where the court promptly recalled the jurors, questioned them and found they were not exposed to prejudicial influence during the brief duration of their dismissal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Jury Trial. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment, and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in re- empaneling a jury shortly after dismissal where the jurors were not exposed to any outside influence that would compromise their ability to fairly reconsider the verdict. The panel held that the standard of review for a district court’s decision to re-empanel discharged jurors was abuse of discretion. As a matter of first impression in the circuit, the panel held that in limited circumstances, a district court may recall a jury shortly after it has been dismissed to correct an error in the verdict, but only after making an appropriate inquiry to determine that the jurors were not exposed to any outside influences that would compromise their ability to fairly reconsider the verdict. The panel further held that the record supported the district court’s finding that the jurors were not exposed to prejudicial outside influences during the brief period of the dismissal. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Bea agreed with the majority that the district court did not err in re-empaneling the jury in this case. Judge Bea, however, did not agree that the district court judge should be required to undertake “an appropriate inquiry” into whether prejudicial influences tainted the jury. DIETZ V. BOULDIN 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.