Washoe Medical Center, Inc., admitted Shirley Swisher for the treatment of a fractured pelvis. During her stay, Swisher suffered a fatal fall from her hospital bed. Gerald Parodi, the administrator of her estate, and others filed an action against Washoe seeking damages for the alleged lack of care in treating Swisher. During voir dire, when the plaintiffs’ attorney returned a few minutes late from a break, the trial judge led the prospective jurors in a standing ovation. Later during voir dire, the judge joked with one of the prospective jurors, whom he had known in college, about his fitness to serve as a judge and personally endorsed another prospective juror’s business. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Washoe. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, but the judge denied the motion. The plaintiffs then appealed, arguing that the tone set by the judge during voir dire prejudiced their right to a fair trial. Should the appellate court agree? Why or why not? E

Shirley Swisher Vs Washoe Medical Center, Inc.

The tone and conduct of the trial judge were inappropriate and they also prejudice the plaintiffs' right to a fair trial.

Based on the above, the appellate court should agree with the plaintiffs.  The case should be remanded for retrial by another judge.

Explanation:

The overt behavior of joking with a juror in addition to the outspoken remarks, by leading a standing ovation, the trial judge will certainly cause the jurors to render verdicts that may not be balanced, fair, and objective.  The judge did not act professionally as a neutral arbitrator in the case.  He is supposed to provide the correct environment for a fair trial and not to constitute a source of public nuisance.  By his conduct, he caused the jurors to return a verdict against Shirley Swisher.  Instead of acting as a neutral arbiter, he became an involved party, forcing the jurors to take his sides.

try c

explanation:

because health care was someone else i think

37 i just had the same problem