Background
Mark Gipson was found liable for unlawfully disclosing intimate images of Jane Doe in violation of federal and Texas state law. During voir dire, a potential juror mentioned reading a newspaper article from 2012 regarding criminal proceedings involving Gipson. Gipson moved for a mistrial, arguing the comment created implicit bias that could not be cured.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of the mistrial motion for abuse of discretion, according great weight to the trial court’s findings. The record showed the juror’s statement was non-specific, unrelated to the present case, and remote in time. The district court struck the juror for cause and concluded the comment did not likely cause prejudice. Consequently, the appellant failed to meet the first step of the legal test required to prove extrinsic influence.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that trial courts have broad discretion to manage voir dire and deny mistrial motions when extrinsic influences are deemed harmless or unrelated to the specific case at hand.