Gayle Lewis Fights to Preserve the Justice System Before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

On January 29, 2001 Attorney Lewis began a trial in which the defendants delay in diagnosis resulted in brain damage to an infant. The trial lasted until February 7, 2001, whereby the Philadelphia jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Attorney Lewis did not file any post-trial motions with the Court at that time.

Approximately fifteen days after the verdict, a juror in the case directed a letter to the presiding judge. This letter informed the judge that some of the jurors had "relied inappropriately on information gathered from sources outside the courtroom to reach that verdict." One example of this outside influence included the jurors' personal friends and relatives within the medical community.

Upon learning of the misconduct, Attorney Lewis requested the trial judge hold an emergency hearing. The purpose of such a hearing would have established if such misconduct took place and what they were told. In no way would the inquiry have endeavored into the personal influence such information had on the jurors. The trial judge denied such request. Attorney Lewis subsequently appealed the trial judge's decision to the Pennsylvania Superior.

In 2002, Attorney Lewis presented argument before the Pennsylvania Superior Court on this issue of juror misconduct. On April 23, 2003 the Superior Court remanded the case back to the trial Judge. The Superior Court directed the trial Judge to hold a hearing and determine whether the alleged acts of juror misconduct occurred. In their Opinion, the Superior Court ordered that if the "trial court concludes that the allegations of juror misconduct are true, judgment should be vacated and a new trial granted." The Court's Opinion can be found at Pratt v. St. Christopher's Hospital et al., 2003 Pa. Super. 155, 824 A.2d 299.

The defendants then appealed the decision of the Superior Court to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for review. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur, or acceptance of the case, and on October 18, 2004 Attorney Lewis presented argument before the Supreme Court. She argued that the trial judge should have held a hearing and determined if: 1) the jurors were exposed to any outside influences; 2) what their friends and family members told them; and 3) how an objective typical juror would have been affected by such influence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet issued its decision regarding the case.

Attorney Lewis realized that the jury's verdict was likely based on the opinions of their friends and family in the medical community. As a result, she has continued to fight for her client to get a fair trial. The Lewis Law Firm are fighting to preserve the fairness that our justice system was originally founded upon.

An overview of this case may also be found in the October 15th and 19th, 2004 issues of The Legal Intelligencer.