McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
| McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 28, 1983 Decided January 18, 1984 | |
| Full case name | McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, et al. |
| Citations | 464 U.S. 548 (more) 104 S. Ct. 845; 78 L. Ed. 2d 663 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Greenwood et al. v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 687 F.2d 338 (10th Cir. 1982). |
| Holding | |
| A juror's failure to respond to question on voir dire did not require new trial absent a showing of denial of right to impartial jury. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Blackmun, joined by Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| Rule 61 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 2111 | |
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that established a standard for challenging a verdict based on inaccurate answers given by prospective jurors during voir dire.[1]
Background
[edit]Bill Greenwood was a juvenile in Kansas whose feet were severed on a riding lawnmower manufactured by McDonough. Before the three-week trials, one of the jurors failed to disclose that her son had sustained a broken leg as a result of an exploding tire. Although McDonough would likely have used a peremptory challenge if they had known the background, there was no direct conflict of interest and the rest of the jurors quickly ruled against the manufacturer in deliberations.
Decision
[edit]The standard adopted by the Court in McDonough was that a verdict could be challenged because of inaccurate answers given during voir dire only if the juror failed to honestly answer a question and an honest answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.[2]