Business Law Case Study

Question

Bill Bryan was a defense attorney facing a difficult situation. His client, Clarisse Darrow, was charged with driving while intoxicated and manslaughter of a passenger, her son, who was killed when the car she was driving left the road on a curve and hit a tree. One of the potential jurors, J. T. Scopes, had declared in written and oral voir dire that he could fairly and impartially decide the issues in the case. In fact, when the defense team had reviewed the jury pool, Scopes had been given a green light as a favorable juror by all concerned. However, Mike Hammer, Bryan’s private investigator, had just discovered that Scopes’ wife was a member of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Unfortunately, before finding this out, Bryan had used up all but one of his preemptory challenges and there were still four jury seats to fill. What courses of action are still open to Bryan? What are the dangers associated with them?

Answer 1

In this scenario, Bill Bryan, the defense attorney, is faced with a challenging situation involving a potential juror, J. T. Scopes, whose wife is a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Bryan has already used up most of his preemptory challenges, and there are four jury seats left to fill. Let's explore the courses of action that are still open to Bryan and the associated dangers:

1. Use the remaining preemptory challenge: Bryan can use his last remaining preemptory challenge to remove another potential juror from the pool. The danger associated with this option is that Bryan may remove a juror who could potentially be sympathetic to his client's case or hold biases that align with the defense's arguments.
2. Challenge J. T. Scopes for cause: Bryan can attempt to challenge J. T. Scopes for cause, arguing that his wife's affiliation with MADD may bias his ability to be impartial in the case. The danger with this option is that the judge may not grant the challenge, as Scopes had initially declared in written and oral voir dire that he could fairly and impartially decide the issues in the case.
3. Seek a settlement or plea bargain: Bryan can explore the possibility of reaching a settlement or plea bargain with the prosecution instead of proceeding to trial. This option would involve negotiating a resolution that may result in lesser charges or penalties for Clarisse Darrow. The danger associated with this option is that the terms of the settlement or plea bargain may still have significant consequences for Darrow.
4. Proceed with the current jury selection: Bryan can choose to proceed with the remaining jury selection process without taking any specific action regarding J. T. Scopes. The danger here is that Scopes' potential bias as a result of his wife's involvement with MADD could negatively impact the defense's case, potentially leading to an unfavorable outcome for Darrow.

Ultimately, the specific choice of action will depend on the attorney's assessment of the risks involved, the available evidence and arguments, and the particular circumstances of the case. It is advisable for Bryan to consult with his client and legal team to make an informed decision on the best course of action to pursue.