The Michigan Supreme Court this week will hear the challenge of a $15 million verdict in Wayne County in a 2003 case involving the death of one person and serious injury to another in an auto accident.
Court will be held today and tomorrow in the Supreme Court’s courtroom on the sixth floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing.
At trial in Pellegrino v AMPCO Systems Parking, the defendant sought to excuse an African-American woman from serving on the jury, but the plaintiff’s counsel objected that the challenge was racially motivated.
Although defense counsel provided race-neutral reasons for removing the juror — she had, during jury selection, stated that she had an inheritance from her mother and thought that the accident victim’s children should also have a legacy — the trial judge denied the challenge, stating that he wanted to have a racially balanced jury.
Although the Court of Appeals found that the trial judge erred by denying the peremptory challenge, the appellate panel held 2-1 that the error was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial.
The majority also concluded that the trial judge did not violate court rules that forbid racial and other forms of discrimination during jury selection.
The dissenting judge would have granted reversal of the verdict and a new trial before a different judge.
Meanwhile, a man convicted in Macomb County of sexually abusing his girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter is challenging the verdict in his case, contending that testimony by a friend of the girl’s mother should not have been admitted into evidence.
The friend testified at trial — in the case of People v Gurskey —that she questioned the girl about the abuse and suggested the names of potential assailants, including the defendant’s.
The child became upset and said “Yes” when the defendant’s name was mentioned, and pointed to her vaginal area and said “Down there,” according to the friend.
The friend’s testimony was admitted into evidence under Michigan Rule of Evidence 803A, the “tender years” exception to the hearsay rule.
Jason Gursky argues he should receive a new trial because the child’s statement was not “spontaneous and without indication of manufacture,” as required by MRE 803A, and so should not have been admitted.
In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed Gursky’s convictions. The panel concluded that, on the whole, “the victim’s statements were primarily spontaneous, despite being prompted” by questions from the mother’s friend.
The remaining eight cases before the court include criminal, defamation, family, insurance and property law issues.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
