Plaintiff suing police should be allowed to question potential jurors about law enforcement bias

Law Reporter, May 2004

Butler v. City of Camden, 352 F.3d 811 (3d Cir. 2003).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trial court cannot deny a plaintiff suing police officers the right to question potential jurors about possible bias in favor of law enforcers.

Here, Butler was allegedly beaten by police officers as they arrested him following a high speed chase. He sued the police officers for violating his civil rights. During voir dire, plaintiff's counsel requested that the trial court ask the jury panel whether, among other things, they were more inclined to believe the testimony of police officers than that of other witnesses. The trial court denied the request, saying that its question regarding whether any person had been arrested or knew a police officer, and an instruction that jurors are to consider testimony equally, would be a sufficient inquiry. The jury rendered a verdict for defendants.

Vacating, the appellate court noted that a trial court has broad discretion, but it is well established that litigants have the right to question potential jurors as to whether they have a disqualifying state of mind. Examining the decisions of other appellate courts, the court found the majority have held that a trial court errs by refusing to allow an attorney to question a jury pool about possible law enforcement bias.

While the trial court should usually allow a voir dire inquiry as to bias, there are several factors appellate courts should consider before reversing a refusal to make an inquiry, including whether the credibility of the witness is at issue and whether other questions about juror attitude are allowed. The determination should be made on a case-by-case basis, the court said. Moreover, the trial court is not required to allow all proposed questions or the particular wording requested by counsel.

Rejecting defendants' argument that the trial court met its duty when it asked whether any person had been arrested or had a family member who was a police officer, the court determined those inquiries are not enough. There is no evidence, the court said, that only people who have been arrested or who have known police officers would have a bias in favor of law enforcers, especially since many people equate law enforcement with credibility. Significantly, in this case police officers were the only witnesses for the defense, making their credibility a central factor.

Accordingly, the court remanded for a new trial.

Plaintiff's Counsel

*Alan E. Denenberg, Philadelphia, Pa.