It must have been one of those only-in-a-courtroom moments. After four days of a medical negligence trial in Montana, the plaintiff’s counsel closed the case by “channeling” the decedent, offering a fictitious first person narrative as to what the decedent experienced during death and while being autopsied. A juror decided that the closing “was too much to bear” and apparently collapsed. The defendant doctor — assisted by three nurses in the jury — revived the fallen juror. In a later hearing, all remaining jurors swore they could set aside what they saw and focus on the events of the case.
The Supreme Court of Montana wasn’t so sure and found that a new trial was warranted. Relying on similar weird courtroom incidents from other jurisdictions, the court found, “Based upon the extraordinary events observed by the jury, we conclude that a mistrial should have been granted or, failing that, a new trial should have been granted after the verdict.” Case is Amy Heidt as PR of Estate of Gerard Heidt v. Faranak Argani, M.D., and Deaconess Billings Clinic.
Interestingly, what was not addressed in the decision was whether the technique of “channeling” the decedent was improper inflammation and prejudice of the jury. Driving a juror to be ill suggests something – whether it is improper or simply good speaking skills and a gruesome topic. But the Montana court either dodged or was not given that issue.
One wonders, if the doctor did not help (or could not help), if that too would be grounds for a mistrial?