The day before Thanksgiving, Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital (JHACH) attorneys filed a motion for a new trial based on “juror misconduct” after losing a groundbreaking jury verdict for $261 million. Instead of deciding to cut their losses and pay what the People decided they owed, JHACH ruined Thanksgiving for the Kowalskis and the much-maligned Juror #1 and his wife.
The defense alleges that Juror #1’s wife paid too close attention to the trial and thus must have influenced her former law enforcement officer husband toward the plaintiff. They provided no evidence of the wife influencing her juror husband but did dox the two online for over a week before public outrage forced them to re-upload the motion with private information redacted including names, address, and photographs.
The plaintiff’s attorneys responded accusing the defense of creating a new definition of juror misconduct naming it “misconduct by proxy.” This characterization was ironic considering JHACH falsely accused Maya Kowalski’s deceased mother of having Munchausen syndrome by proxy, which led to the lawsuit in the first place. The defense argues that Juror #1, simply by living with his wife, was prejudiced against JHACH because his wife followed pro-Kowalski broadcasts, Facebook pages, and journalists, including PJ Media. They stalked her social media posts and put screenshots of who she follows online in their motion.
I sat down with the Kowalki’s attorney Greg Anderson to discuss his response to the hospital’s attempt for a new trial.
The plaintiff’s response pointed out the absurdity in the defense’s argument. “First, the Court told the jurors repeatedly that they were not to discuss the case with anyone, even family members. As noted below, to engage in the unsupported assumption Defendant posits would mean there could never be a married juror. So, no it does not strain credulity to believe jurors follow instructions,” read the plaintiff's motion.
The defense’s motion was analyzed by at least five lawyers with large YouTube followings who all laughed riotously at the motion that was called “frivolous,” “reaching,” and “ludicrous,” among other insults. Specifically, one of the phrases in the defense’s motion that caused the most laughter was every time Juror #1’s wife was mentioned, the phrase “with whom he resides” followed leaving most to question whose wife doesn’t reside with them all the time. Further, the defense seemed to think that the juror’s oath somehow attached itself to his wife who was under no obligation to stay away from the news or refrain from discussing the case online with friends or strangers. Indeed, only the juror was not allowed to seek out news on the case during the trial. It was also noted that with Juror #1’s law enforcement background, he and his wife would be familiar with not being able to discuss certain cases he was working on as a regular rule.
But JHACH’s lawyers tried desperately to make a mountain out of a molehill by throwing every allegation they could think of at the wall hoping it would stick. “Post-trial research and information obtained regarding [Juror #1’s wife’s] social media history reveals that her personal engagment with the public commentary of this trial is unlike that of a member of the public who shares a general interest in the case, and is particularly inappropriate given her role as the wife of the jury foreman.”
Of course, there is no official role of “the wife of the jury foreman,” as wives or husbands of jurors are not required to take any oath. Further, the defense’s argument that they collected this information post-trial fell flat when leaked emails showed they knew about at least some of the Reddit posts where the information was compiled before the verdict. The plaintiff argues that they had a duty to bring any information forward to the court promptly rather than wait until after the verdict if they believed juror misconduct had occurred.
“The pre-verdict information on which Defendant relies was available and, it appears, known to Defendant before the verdict. Yet, Defendant waited to see how the verdict came in before bringing these assertions to the Court. Had it acted timely – if its claims had any merit – they could have been addressed before this nine-week trial went to the jury. Over 20 years ago, the Florida Supreme Court stated: ‘The court system is already overburdened and does not have the luxury of allowing jury verdicts to unravel or be subject to attack because of information which could have been reasonably obtained before the trial begins.’ Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334, 345 (Fla. 2002).”
JHACH also hilariously accused Juror #1 of having information that was only available online on Maya Kowalksi’s treating physician’s website stating, “On October 9, 2023, Juror #1 posed the following question to Maya Kowalski: ‘When it comes to ‘creature comforts,’ were you made to feel comfortable, or were you made to-or just felt-that you were in a hostile place?’ The phrase ‘creature comfort’ was not used by any witness at the trial, but it is used on Dr. Kirkpatrick’s RSD Foundation website related to ketamine treatment, as demonstrated below,” read the defense’s motion.
The trouble with that allegation is that it is demonstrably false. The plaintiff’s response included court transcripts of Maya’s physical therapist using the phrase “creature comforts” eleven days before Juror #1 used it in a question. “Maybe she didn’t know how it was going to make her body, her emotions respond and that’s why she didn’t want to do it in therapy, she wasn’t sure, but at home, she has her creature comforts, her dad, her brother, you know, maybe her favorite show,” testified Ms. DeYoung.
Both motions should be read, the defense motion for its humorous elements and the plaintiff’s motion for its superior arguments and writing. There’s much more in there that is not only entertaining but laughable when it comes to JHACH and their desperation to get a do-over. But what’s not laughable is the precedent that is being set that if the losing party in a lawsuit wants to they can stalk, harass, dox, and otherwise molest the wife of a juror they don’t like. This feels like jury intimidation and it makes one wonder who will sign up to be on a jury if these are the possible repercussions meted out by sore losers.
A hearing is set for December 15th when Judge Carroll is expected to rule on the motions and decide whether or not the defense can question Juror #1 and his wife and be given discovery into their personal devices.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member