Kia Franklin

Judge Orders Jurors Not to Watch ‘Sicko’

At the request of plaintiff’s lawyers in a medical insurance lawsuit, a California judge has ordered jurors not to see the film Sicko before conclusion of the trial. The defendant insurance company (obviously) agreed and the judge granted this order. Apparently, this case shares similarities with one of the stories profiled in the movie. A widow is suing St. Joseph Hospital of Orange and Bristol Park Medical Group for denying her late husband Daniel Madigan an MRI, which would have diagnosed his cancer before it paralyzed him; and for denying him home hospice care that she believes would have extended his life and made his last days more livable.

Check the Michael Moore site for the full article and Moore’s reaction. He’s ticked. See the paragraphs in bold in below’s excerpt:

August 3rd, 2007 12:39 pm Prescription for Jurors: Don’t Watch ‘Sicko’

By Don J. DeBenedictis / Los Angeles Daily Journal

SANTA ANA, CA — Audiences have been flocking to see “Sicko,” Michael Moore’s passionate condemnation of the American health care industry. But a dozen plus Orange County residents are not among them.

They are members of a jury set to begin deliberations Monday in a trial that claims health care providers resisted expensive treatment for a cancer patient, making his last days fewer and more painful than they should have been.

In a rare move, the judge in the case has admonished the jurors not to see Moore’s film. Experts could think of only a handful of times jurors have been warned not to see particular movies. And this order, observers said, stands out because the movie has nothing to do, specifically, with the Orange County case.

Moore said Thursday that he is incensed by the order. In a statement provided through his publicist, he said:

“Is the judge going to stop the jurors from seeing the hundreds of millions of dollars in TV commercials paid for by the health care industry? My movie reveals the truth and creates a more even playing field.

“Blocking the jury from seeing ‘Sicko’ and leaving them helplessly exposed to industry propaganda forces them to make a decision based on only one side of the story. Any reasonable person knows this is not fair.”

A jury scholar with the National Center for State Courts, G. Thomas Munsterman in Arlington, Va., said he was surprised that the lawyers would ask for and that the judge would grant such an order.

“To tell them that there’s a particular thing that they should not see or watch … It may be germane to the topic but not to the defense,” Munsterman said…(READ MORE)

According to the article, while they are rare, a handful of judges have issued similar orders against watching potentially prejudicial movies in the past. Examples include: an order against watching a movie about Martha Stewart during her trial, an order against watching The Insider in a tobacco class action case, and an order against “United 93” in some terrorism cases.

Posted at 4:34 PM, Aug 03, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)