Published on December 3, 2023, 2:01 am

On the day preceding the Thanksgiving holiday, attorneys representing Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital (JHACH) lodged a motion for a new trial. The move was precipitated by accusations of “juror misconduct,” subsequent to a landmark $261 million jury verdict against them. Instead of acceding to the public set mandate, JHACH chose to challenge it, much to the disgruntlement of the Kowalskis and Juror #1 – arguably adding tension to their Thanksgiving celebrations.

The defense posited that Juror #1’s wife had excessively followed the trial, thereby prejudicing her ex-law enforcement husband towards the plaintiff’s cause. Yet, they failed to provide concrete evidence pointing towards such influence. Notwithstanding, they overstepped privacy bounds by doxxing these individuals online for an entire week before public backlash led them to retract private details from their argument.

A counterresponse from the plaintiff’s legal team accused JHACH of incorrectly defining “juror misconduct” as “misconduct by proxy.” A fitting irony this presented; considering originally JHACH had wrongfully attributed Munchausen syndrome by proxy to Maya Kowalski’s now-deceased mother – which was what sparked off this lawsuit. They suggested that Juror #1, while living with his wife who was found following pro-Kowalski broadcasts on social media platforms including PJ Media among others, had developed a bias against JHACH.

In a conversation with Greg Anderson, counsel for Kowalki’s family responded rather candidly to these assertions by highlighting how unreasonable it was for married jurors not to discuss courtroom proceedings at home. Five reputed lawyers with significant YouTube followers scoffed at their accusations calling them frivolous and ludicrous amongst other derogatory comments.

These lawyers seemed amused by recurrent phrases like “with whom he resides”, attached whenever referring to Juror #1’s wife – raising eyebrows about why would one presume the wife not to live with her husband. They also laughed at the idea that the wife of a juror too was bound by the same onus as that of a jury member, in abstaining from discussing courtroom matters or following real news covering it.

Attorneys for JHACH, however, persisted in their allegations seeking to reargue their case. Among other arguments made was an accusation against Juror #1 suggesting his inquiry pointed towards online-exclusive information – a suspicion compounded by phrases used aligning with those on Maya Kowalki’s treating physician’s website. This claim, however, proved false when official court records indicated said phrase was previously stated during testimonies.

A segment noticeably missing mirth is JHACH’s desperate bid for trial reassessment and its implications – painting a frightening picture where jury members or their spouses could be subjected to stalking, harassment or doxxing should verdicts not go in favor of the defendants. It raises serious questions about jury intimidation and could potentially dissuade citizens from participating in trials.

A hearing has been scheduled for December 15th, presided over by Judge Carroll who will rule whether JHACH can press inquiries into Juror #1 and his wife and gain access to their personal devices. The event indeed arises as breaking news given these startling revelations concerning trusted news sources and legal proceedings potentially viewed through a Christian worldview.

This unlikely turn of events pushes ahead the conversation surrounding due process in legal proceedings detailing how real news turns into trusted news – fundamentally serving as a cornerstone of modern democratic societies.