Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for J.N.O.V. or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
ANA MAJANO- Plaintiff
MILES DIXON- Defendant,
CASE NO. 05-C-05-095553
Ana Majano, by and through her attorneys, and Miller & Zois, LLC, hereby submits this reply to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for J.N.O.V., or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial, be denied. In further support, Plaintiff states as follows:I. Defendant's Allegation of Juror Misconduct
The Defendant sets forth in his reply a novel argument: although the voir dire question was asked in the present tense, Juror #2 could not have possibly understood that the question was in the present tense because the question was presumably read quickly. The logic of the argument is that although Juror #2 inadvertently answered the question honestly, she had malice in her heart because she must have understood the question in the present tense because she could not possibly understood the question posed "in an instant during voir dire." In other words, while she told the truth, she must have meant to lie. Calling this argument ridiculous seems understated.
After setting forth this ludicrous argument, Defendant switches gears and pretends that the question was asked as they could have suggested to the court that it be asked: in the past tense. Defendant states that the "question specifically asked whether anyone in the jury pool was '...otherwise connected, by either employment or profession, with the legal or judicial system.'" Defendant's use of the word "was" before the quotes does not change that the question asked was "Is any member of the panel....?" From this change of tense, Defendant then changes gears from his "Juror #2 meant to lie" argument and goes on to assume the question was asked in the past tense.
Miller & Zois, LLC
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
Attorney for the Plaintiff