Shit! Provider on My Jury Panel!

Exactly! Approach the bench, tell the judge, get her off the venire. End of problem.

LOL. Certainly not bragging! Not even sure what there is to brag about in this situation?

As to why I posted, mainly it because I thought it might make an interesting legal discussion topic. I also wanted to hear others' opinions about the situation and how best to deal with it, especially interested in any lawyer who's had this or something similar happen before. Not everything in the law is black and white and it's good to get the advice of others. Lastly, sometimes you just need to tell someone what's happened with you, but it's not a story I care to share with my RW friends and family.

Well an interesting situation but your duty should be clear as an officer of the court as well as your client's representative. Voir dire, Venire or no, get her excused at your first opportunity because to not do so could very well end the trial in a mistrial if she is on the jury panel and your connection to her is discovered prior to the conclusion of said trial. Additionally, you could be fair game for disciplinary action by the Bar should your connection be revealed and pursued by your client or opposing counsel while also really pissing the Judge off which you don't want to do.

In the end, it is your choice but topics like this are covered in a 2nd year law school's Professional Responsibility course taught at most law schools.

An aside is I have to tell you this is pretty funny since what are the odds of this happening... I mean, really?

Ethical considerations require you to put the interests of your client first. Conveniently "fail to recognize" her unless the trial goes badly for you, and then suddenly recognize her and get a mistrial.

"Your honor, juror #4 has fixed her hair differently, and I now recognize her as one of the hundreds of prostitutes I've done business with. I request a mistrial."

Yes, of course, it may embarrass you and harm your career, but it's your sacred duty to your client.


[Warning for the humor impaired]
I'm joking.
[/Warning for the humor impaired

Ethical considerations require you to put the interests of your client first. Conveniently "fail to recognize" her unless the trial goes badly for you, and then suddenly recognize her and get a mistrial.

"Your honor, juror #4 has fixed her hair differently, and I now recognize her as one of the hundreds of prostitutes I've done business with. I request a mistrial."

Yes, of course, it may embarrass you and harm your career, but it's your sacred duty to your client.


[Warning for the humor impaired]
I'm joking.
[/Warning for the humor impaired Originally Posted by GneissGuy

I was going to say something similar.

Tell the judge you just realized she is someone you were involved in a minor traffic accident with several years ago. After all, you apparently did "run into" her.

At least in Texas, the mere fact that a juror knows an attorney, or vice versa, standing alone, isn't enough to disqualify a juror. Otherwise, you could never get a jury in a small, rural county. I think you're going to have to tell the judge something other than "I know this lady." If you only tell him (or her) that, the judge will simply ask the juror do you know Mr. X, and if she says, "Yes," he'll ask "How do you know him."

Seems like you need to level with the judge and say "I had a rather personal relationship with her that would be embarrassing for her to have disclosed in open court. Then, at worse, she gets questioned at the bench. Of course, that may still be very bad for her (and maybe you) if the Judge persists in deeply questioning the circumstances. A serious problem, not doubt. But I agree that you can't just sit there.

The real test of how ethical a lawyer you are is what do you do in that situation if you practice law with your SO and she's sitting second chair in the trial!! Jesus, talk about a fucking mess. (And that last sentence hits rather close at home for some of us.) Talk about the shit hitting the fan.

You have a conflict of interest in this case.

You don't have to be too specific when you object to someone being in the jury pool.

I don't think the judge cares too much who sits on the jury either. He just wants 12 people on the panel and arrive at some verdict.

Just say to the judge that you object to this juror for cause and snap, she is out!

As long as you tipped her well on your date you shouldn't have any problems.

Thanks for responding TTH. I was hoping you and/or ShysterJohn would see this.

At least in Texas, the mere fact that a juror knows an attorney, or vice versa, standing alone, isn't enough to disqualify a juror. Otherwise, you could never get a jury in a small, rural county. I think you're going to have to tell the judge something other than "I know this lady." If you only tell him (or her) that, the judge will simply ask the juror do you know Mr. X, and if she says, "Yes," he'll ask "How do you know him." Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Exactly. The idea that I could get the juror disqualified with no questions asked by simply saying I know her is nonsense. That's not the law in Texas. For juror disqualification (among other reasons), the potential juror must have a direct or indirect interest in the case. Simply knowing one of the attorneys is not enough. My read of case law is that you need a pretty close relationship, such as a close friend or business partner. FWIW, I don't think my relationship with this potential juror comes close to meeting the standard for juror disqualification. I saw her one time for 30 minutes more than two years ago. Absolutely no contact since then. I didn't know her real name and she didn't know mine. I didn't recognize her for awhile and, to the best of my knowledge, she did not ever recognize me. Although I'd like to think I'm so good in the sack that she's forever thinking about me, my more objective self suspects, if she recalls me at all, I am nothing more to her than nice one-time client who never came back to see her and that she does not feel any reason to favor me in a trial.

Seems like you need to level with the judge and say "I had a rather personal relationship with her that would be embarrassing for her to have disclosed in open court. Then, at worse, she gets questioned at the bench. Of course, that may still be very bad for her (and maybe you) if the Judge persists in deeply questioning the circumstances. A serious problem, not doubt. But I agree that you can't just sit there.

The real test of how ethical a lawyer you are is what do you do in that situation if you practice law with your SO and she's sitting second chair in the trial!! Jesus, talk about a fucking mess. (And that last sentence hits rather close at home for some of us.) Talk about the shit hitting the fan. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If I'm going to say anything, this is exactly how I would have to do it. There's a chance the other side and judge agree to dismiss her no questions asked. But, there's also a chance the judge asks me more questions or the other side wants to bring her up and ask follow up questions. That would be very bad indeed. And, I was not at this trial alone; not a spouse but close enough to your speculation to make even the admission of "a rather personal relationship" with no more questions from the judge or other side a shitload of a problem.

As to what happened, I said nothing and she said nothing. The potential juror was struck with a peremptory challenge.

I never made any misrepresentation to the court and I don't think silence in this situation was unethical. If there's an ethical rule requiring lawyers to affirmatively disclose every relationship they have with a potential juror, however tenuous, then I would like to see a cite so that I know better how I need to handle this if it ever comes up again. If the rules require disclosure in this situation, then I'll follow the rules. If the rules don't require disclosure, then I'm comfortable that silence was the best decision under the circumstances, although it would have been much more problematic if the potential juror was an ATF or someone I had an ongoing relationship with and who definitely knew me.

Talk about the shit hitting the fan. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

At least an honest man that is telling you where you stand and I agree that how ever this plays out you are in a real shitty position right now. Good luck with this one.

Well, if she's reading this thread after she got home from jury duty, the cat's out of the bag now.

If there's an ethical rule requiring lawyers to affirmatively disclose every relationship they have with a potential juror, however tenuous, then I would like to see a cite so that I know better how I need to handle this if it ever comes up again. Originally Posted by Shackleton

Here's one: State v. Mathias, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 1458 (Prosecutor disciplined for not disclosing prior relationship with juror).

If you practiced in Ohio you'd be in deep shit. Lucky for you Texas doesn't have an equivalent rule to Ohio 3.5(b) so you're only in shallow shit instead.

If it were me I would have approached and said that I knew her and that we had had a "brief personal relationship" - so brief, in fact, that she might not even remember who I am. What's the judge gonna do at this point? If she gets questioned her answer won't matter either way. I've already explained to the judge why she might not recognize me and it's not like she's going to stand up and say "Yes, I know him. He paid me $300 to suck his cock two years ago." By admitting the contact while offering an explanation about why your stories might differ you diffuse the whole situation.

The real nightmare scenario, though, is that you both stay quiet and she does get on the panel and then she calls you up that night asking how much you're going to pay her to not tell the judge . . . .

Cheers,
Mazo.

Just be quiet about it, doubtful she will remember you just like you won't remember every single case. You open up about it and you open yourself up to a world of pain and regret. Just be quiet about it just like I am more than sure she will be.

If I'd been on when this was posted, I'd simply have reminded you that there's a reason we have peremptory challenges.

In my own state, we ask the jurors if they are acquainted with any of the attorneys, the judge, or others involved in the case, and how so. If she didn't remember you, you'd save a peremptory for her if it concerned you; if she did, I would suspect (if she's a decent provider) that she'd say no. Again, you'd have discretion on the peremptory.

My last line makes me wonder what one does if someone in a lawyer's 12-step program meetings winds up on a jury panel in front of that lawyer. Again, I suppose that's why we have peremptory challenges. If I were in a jury pool in that situation I would believe I'd have to deny knowing counsel in order to maintain members' anonymity, regardless of the situation.

I wouldn't discuss the matter with the provider if I used her again, unless she does.