Paul Matthew Zerka v. Harlon Green

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in an excessive force action, despite voir dire admissions by several jurors that they had relationships with police officers, plaintiff’s counsel never challenged any of them for cause, thus failing to meet the second prong of the McDonough test
• stating that “McDonough does not entirely foreclose a party from seeking a new trial on the basis of a prospective juror’s honest, though mistaken, response”
• counting votes in McDonough and concluding that a finding of dishonesty is not a prerequisite to relief
• \`[I]t ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.'\
• “ We hold that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).