Transcript from Schnall hearing gives details of jury misconduct

Jurors in the trial of a former Shoreline pediatrician accused of abusing boys failed to fully disclose their own legal and personal histories, violated a judge's order by following media coverage of the case, and even read a newspaper story about the civil case aloud during deliberations.

Some of the jurors in the civil trial of Bill Schnall acted so improperly that a King County judge had no choice but to toss out their verdict late last week and order a new trial, according to a transcript of the hearing released Tuesday.

"I have to say I have no confidence in the verdict," said Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas.

In the unusual case, Kallas considered several different allegations of juror and attorney misconduct put forth after the end of the July trial by plaintiffs' attorneys, who represent four former patients of Schnall.

At the end of the trial, the jury found that Schnall, formerly a well-respected pediatrician at Richmond Pediatric Clinic and onetime president of the medical staff at Seattle Children's, violated the standard of care for a health-care provider and that he negligently inflicted emotional distress on three of the four patients, who were treated by Schnall when they were boys and teenagers.

The three and their families were awarded $630,000 for years of emotional abuse that included inappropriately touching the genitals of the plaintiffs, taking nude photos of one, secretly providing some of the boys with money, sending them sexually explicit e-mails and discussing his sexual arousal with them.

But the jury in the civil case also found Schnall did not communicate with minors for immoral purposes, which prevented the award of any attorneys' fees and costs — which were said to have been about $2 million.

The plaintiffs welcomed the mistrial and the chance they could be awarded attorney's fees following a second trial, said one of their attorneys, Anne Bremner.

Depositions taken after the verdict revealed that one juror failed to disclose during jury selection that she and her husband had themselves been defendants in medical-malpractice lawsuits before. Though Kallas said that she believed the omission was an honest mistake, it "was prejudicial to the plaintiffs."

Another juror said that partway through the trial, she began to remember being the victim of sexual abuse herself and that the memories were so distressing she sought immediate therapy and disclosed the information to other jurors. Kallas stated that failure to disclose that information to plaintiffs' attorneys unfairly prevented them from challenging the juror's participation.

According to the transcript, several jurors submitted declarations after the verdict was delivered about exposure to media coverage of the case during the trial. Generally, jurors in civil and criminal trials are ordered by the judge not to view any media coverage of the case and to have their media screened by others. Viewing media accounts during the trial can contaminate the jury and expose them to evidence that has been excluded from the trial.

In the Schnall case, jurors were not allowed to know that by finding that Schnall communicated with minors for immoral purposes, they would be opening the door for an attorney award that could be $1.8 million.

But on the last day of deliberations, some jurors discussed media coverage they had seen the night before and one juror said to those who were favoring a vote for the plaintiffs, "If you knew what you were voting on, you would probably change your vote." The juror said a discussion about monetary awards then ensued.

One juror also acknowledged the presence of a newspaper article about the case in the jury room and said she read the article aloud to seven or eight others before the verdict was delivered. Another juror said she remembered the article referencing the fact that prosecutors never pursued criminal charges against Schnall, according to the transcript.

Kallas also found that one of the defense attorneys, John Gagliardi, used an improper argument during his closing argument in the case, another element of misconduct that contributed to the order for a new trial.

Natalie Singer: 206-464-2704 or nsinger@seattletimes.com