CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 14-05-00831-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Joseph Earl Bias v. State

Joseph Earl Bias appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, asserting errors in the trial court's granting of the State's challenges for cause to two venirepersons and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The case originated from an incident where Bias allegedly pulled a gun and fired shots in a shoe store. The jury found Bias guilty, assessing a twenty-year confinement. The appellate court found the evidence factually sufficient, citing positive identification of Bias by the complainant and corroborating testimony. The court also determined that any error in excusing venirepersons did not deprive Bias of a lawfully constituted jury, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyEvidentiary ReviewVoir DireJury SelectionChallenges for CauseCredibility of WitnessesCriminal AppealTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galvan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This workers' compensation appeal originated from a take-nothing judgment, where the jury found that Mario Galvan did not sustain an injury during his employment. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision to overrule a for-cause challenge against a juror who expressed bias against chiropractor testimony as sole medical evidence. This led the appellant to use a peremptory challenge, which he argued prevented him from removing another juror. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error as the serving juror showed no bias and the unanimous verdict indicated no harm, as five unchallenged jurors could have rendered the same decision.

Jury SelectionJuror BiasPeremptory ChallengeChallenge for CauseVoir DireHarmless ErrorAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceChiropractic Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Feng Ling Liu

The case concerns a motion for a new trial filed by Rui Yang and her co-defendants, Feng Ling Liu and Vanessa Bandrich, who were convicted of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud. The defendants argued for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, alleging juror misconduct by Juror 2, who purportedly lied about social media activity and exhibited bias during the trial. The Court found that Juror 2's tweets, while discussing her experience, did not delve into the substance of the case and showed no dishonesty or bias, nor did they cause prejudice to the defendants. Concluding that no manifest injustice occurred, the District Court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.

Juror misconductSocial mediaNew trial motionFed.R.Crim.P. 33Immigration fraudConspiracyJuror biasSixth AmendmentImpartial juryVoir dire
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sullemon v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Michael Sullemon appealed a workers' compensation judgment against United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, where a jury found him temporarily, rather than permanently, totally incapacitated despite his continued employment. Sullemon contended that the trial court improperly refused to strike three venirepersons for cause due to alleged bias or prejudice regarding his capacity for work, thereby forcing him to exhaust peremptory challenges on them and preventing him from striking other objectionable jurors. The appellate court affirmed that Sullemon had properly preserved his error by making a timely objection and showing that he was compelled to accept objectionable jurors. However, upon reviewing the merits, the court determined that the venirepersons did not disqualify themselves as a matter of law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its factual determination that bias or prejudice was not present to the extent of disqualification for jurors Harrington, Cannon, and Dixon. Consequently, Sullemon's point of error was overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationJury SelectionVoir DirePeremptory ChallengesJuror BiasJuror PrejudiceTotal IncapacityPreservation of ErrorAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson

Ronald Jackson sued Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. for negligence and products liability after being injured by a compound bow. The jury found Golden Eagle defectively marketed the bow but also found Jackson negligent, attributing 45% responsibility to him and awarding approximately $20,000 in damages. Jackson moved for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct and bias, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals's judgment, holding that Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 327(b) and Texas Rules of Civil Evidence 606(b), which generally prohibit jurors from testifying about deliberations unless "outside influence" is involved, are constitutional. The Court clarified that discussions during a trial break are not "deliberations" and thus not barred, but found Jackson's evidence of juror bias inconclusive. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Jackson’s other points of error.

Products LiabilityJuror MisconductJuror BiasNew TrialAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawDue ProcessTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Civil EvidenceOutside Influence Exception
References
39
Case No. 12-03-00371-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2005

Joe F. Caraway and William H. Bailey v. Robert C. Gronwaldt

Appellants Joe F. Caraway and William H. Bailey challenged a trial court's take-nothing judgment against appellees Robert C. Gronwaldt, ExxonMobil Corporation, and several insurance entities. The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by not striking a prospective juror (No. 26) for cause due to potential bias. Veniremember No. 26 had professional dealings with some of the defendant insurance companies and was a defendant in a separate, pending lawsuit filed by Caraway's counsel. Despite initial reservations about impartiality, No. 26 ultimately assured the court he could render a fair and impartial verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in its decision not to disqualify the juror, as his responses did not conclusively establish bias.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror BiasChallenge for CauseAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTake-Nothing JudgmentWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance LitigationPeremptory Challenges
References
12
Case No. AP-77,029
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Harris, James Jr.

This document is a transcript from a Capital Murder trial involving James Harris Jr. It primarily covers two main aspects: a Rule 705 examination for expert witness Dr. Raymond Singer and the individual voir dire of potential jurors (Ms. Woods, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Vanscoy). During the expert witness hearing, the judge allows Dr. Singer to testify as a neuropsychologist and neurotoxicologist, despite the State's objections regarding his qualifications and past exclusions from testifying in other courts, while also allowing the State to cross-examine on those past exclusions. The bulk of the transcript details the extensive questioning of several potential jurors by both the prosecution and defense, delving into their views on the death penalty, presumptions of innocence, burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, voluntary intoxication, and their ability to follow specific legal instructions, including disregarding confessions and considering mitigating circumstances. The defense repeatedly challenges jurors for cause, citing biases towards the death penalty and an inability to consider mitigation or disregard confessions, but these challenges are largely denied by the court. The defense's request for additional peremptory strikes is also denied, leading to an objectionable juror being seated.

Capital MurderExpert Witness TestimonyNeurotoxicologyNeuropsychologyVoir DireJury SelectionDeath PenaltyMitigating CircumstancesFuture DangerousnessConfession Admissibility
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc.

Chief Justice Walker dissents from the majority's decision to declare Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327(b) unconstitutional. He argues that Rule 327(b) is not in fatal conflict with the Texas Constitution when properly construed in conjunction with Rule 327(a). Walker contends that the trial court correctly distinguished between jury deliberations and juror misconduct during voir dire, with Rule 327(a) allowing evidence of the latter. The dissent criticizes prior judicial interpretations that overly expand the definition of "jury deliberations," thereby improperly restricting the admission of evidence concerning juror bias during voir dire, which hinders a fair trial. Furthermore, the dissent questions the majority's constitutional challenge, stating that Rule 327(b) was not implicated in the trial court's decision regarding juror Maxwell's voir dire misconduct.

Constitutional LawCivil ProcedureJury MisconductVoir DireTexasDissenting OpinionRule 327(b) TRCPRule 327(a) TRCPJuror BiasMotion for New Trial
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Beattie

This is an appeal from a judgment in a worker’s compensation case where the appellee, Heriberto Beattie, was found to have suffered permanent and total incapacity. The appellant, Texas Employers Insurance Association, challenged the judgment, alleging denial of its constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The core of the appeal concerned the jury selection process, where three jurors from a prior, similar worker's compensation case involving the same defendant and defense counsel were impaneled for the Beattie case. The appellant's motions for continuance, mistrial, to strike the common jurors, and for supplementary voir dire were all denied by the trial court. The appellate court found that the denial of an opportunity for supplementary voir dire to expose potential juror bias, after a timely request, resulted in a denial of the right to a fair and impartial jury. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

worker's compensationjury selectionvoir direjuror biasfair trialdue processTexas Constitutionappellate reviewjudicial discretionreversible error
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 499 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational