Jury
Agreements
Civil
Cases
Day v. Panos,
676 P.2d 403 (Utah
1984)
Dog bite judgment was reversed and motion for a new trial
was granted because of chance verdict/agreement to average amount of negligence
assessed by individual jurors to arrive at final verdict.
Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Watson,
656 S.W.2d
612 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983)
Worker's compensation judgment was reversed and remanded
because of juror agreement to exclude certain jurors from deliberative process
after those jurors voted against the majority with respect to certain special
issues.
Criminal
Cases
Jennings v.
State ,
107 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.
2003
)
In possession of illegal weapon case, defendant was entitled to new
trial on ground of jury misconduct based on a juror's affidavit stating
that the jury determined defendant's guilt by making a list of facts
that made him guilty and a list of facts that made him not guilty and
then agreed to be bound to vote in accordance with the longer of the two
lists. The juror further stated that she changed her vote of "not
guilty" to "guilty" because of the jurors' agreement.
Frieze v. State,
1998 WL
372735 (Tex. Ct. App. 1998), petition for discretionary
review refused (Feb 24, 1999)
Conviction for indecency with a child
remanded for new trial because jurors agreed to convict only on
representation from juror who was Sheriff's Department employee that
defendant would get probation.
People v.
Guzman,
136 Cal.Rptr. 163 (Cal. Ct. App.
1977)
Drug possession conviction reversed where juror, ultimately excused
but allowed to stay on panel for two days, "harangued" fellow jurors
about acquitting one defendant in exchange for convicting his
codefendant; appellate court held that entire jury should have been
excused and that trial court's inquiry into misconduct was
insufficient.
Bader v. State,
777 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Ct.
App. 1989)
Conviction for criminal trespass was reversed and remanded
for a new trial because one juror agreed to convict in exchange for giving the
defendant probation.
Bennett v. State,
738 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Ct. App.
1987)
Conviction for aggravated assault was reversed and
remanded and a new trial granted because the jury had agreed to convict on
aggravated assault, rather than attempted murder, in exchange for imposing the
maximum possible punishment. The court noted that the harm in this instance
stems from the fact that the defendant was denied a fair and impartial jury who
would consider the full range of punishment.
McIntire v. State,
698 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1985)
Conviction for aggravated sexual assault and indecent
liberties with a child was remanded for a hearing because of several possible
acts of jury misconduct, including an implied quotient verdict, third party
communication with a juror and discussion of parole. The jurors apparently
agreed to average the amount of time they thought the appellant should get and
thus a hearing should have been granted on this ground. Moreover, one of the
appellant's own character witnesses remarked "What do you do with a guy
like that?" which was sufficient to raise a rebuttable presumption of
injury to the defendant. Finally, a juror admitted to discussing parole and this
alone was sufficient to sustain appellant's motion for a hearing on a new trial.
Escarcega v. State,
711 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. Ct.
App. 1986)
Aggravated sexual assault conviction was reversed and
remanded for a new trial because of jury agreements to convict on aggravated
sexual assault in exchange for giving the defendant probation.
People v. Guzman,
136 Cal.Rptr. 163 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1977)
Conviction for heroin was reversed because a juror,
ultimately excused but allowed to stay on the panel for two days,
"harangued" his fellow jurors about acquitting one defendant in
exchange for convicting his co-defendant. The court held that the entire jury
should have been excused and that the trial court's inquiry into the jury
misconduct was insufficient.
Juror Experimentation and Investigation
Doan v. Brigano,
237 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2001)
Where murder defendant claimed that
bruises could not be seen in dark, juror went home, approximated bruise with lipstick, and
reported to rest of jury that because simulated "bruise" could be seen, defendant was
lying; federal court finds violation under AEDPA because Ohio court had relied on state
rules of evidence to prohibit juror from testifying, thereby denying defendant's
confrontation and other constitutional rights; error deemed harmless where found not to
have influenced jury's decision.
Lawson v. Borg,
60 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 1995)
Grant of habeas relief affirmed in murder
case where one juror, after conducting his own investigation during trial of the defendant,
told other jurors during guilt phase deliberations that defendant was "very violent" and
"had a violent temper;" Held harmful where jury had to determine whether excessive force
used in order to find special circumstance of attempted robbery.
United States v. Beach,
296 F.2d 153 (4th Cir. 1961)
Juror experiment required new trial
if experiment was conducted under conditions other than those existing in the defendant's
house. Remanded for hearing
United States v. Posner, 644
F.Supp. 885 (S.D.Fla. 1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 935
(1988), rehearing denied, 485 U.S. 1042 (1988).
Defendant's motion for a new trial was granted in this tax evasion case
because jurors received extrinsic information both during trial and
during their deliberations. The information included two jurors'
knowledge that the defendant's co-defendant had been convicted of a
crime, the jury foreperson having read news accounts of the trial and
one juror visited the property site, which was the subject matter of his
crime of inflating the value of the donated property thereby increasing
its value as a tax deduction.
Jennings v. Oku, 677 F. Supp. 1061 (D. Hawaii 1988). Conviction and sentence vacated where jurors used foreman’s
Datsun sedan to ascertain how defendant’s fingerprints came to be on
victim’s Datsun station wagon.
United States v. Castello,
526 F. Supp. 847 (W.D.
Tex. 1981)
Prejudice resulted where
juror fired weapon into an object over weekend and informed other jurors of results. Court
held that "[o]nce a juror has breached his duty by infecting the jury's deliberations with
extrinsic material, a new trial will be warranted if there is a reasonable possibility of
prejudice resulting therefrom." Court applied rebuttable presumption of prejudice once
juror breach is shown.
Simon v. Kuhlman,
488 F.Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y.
1979)
Upon petition for habeas corpus
relief, an evidentiary hearing was granted in case involving a conviction for attempted first-degree robbery, possession of weapons and first degree reckless endangerment because
one juror wore stocking mask and asked other jurors if they could identify him when
defendant allegedly wore a stocking mask during crime.
People v. Collins,
813 N.E.2d 285 (Ill. App. 2004)
In homicide case, the
prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose from
the jury foreman’s visit to the crime scene, which the juror testified
was done in order to better understand the testimony of various
witnesses. The prosecution’s contention that the crime scene visit was
cumulative of photographs that were admitted at trial was unpersuasive
given that the juror testified that the photographs that had been
available during the trial had been inadequate and the ones that were
available during deliberations came too late.
Hammock v.
State ,
592
S.E.2d 415 (Ga. 2004)
In felony murder case
where defendant claimed she acted in self-defense, defendant was
entitled to a new trial based on a juror’s improper conduct in seeking
out and introducing extraneous evidence into deliberations. The distance
between the defendant and the victim at the time the defendant fired the
weapon was an important issue in the defense. Although the blood spatter
expert opined that the victim was farther from the defendant than
asserted by the defense, the expert admitted that he had failed to
measure the width of a bed which prevented him from determining from the
blood spatters exactly how far the victim was from the defendant.
Testimony at the hearing on defendant’s motion for new trial established
that a juror measured the dimensions of her own bed in order to fill in
the gap left by the blood spatter expert and conveyed this information
to the jury. Notably, the jury had not been unanimous prior to receiving
the extraneous evidence.
Meyer v.
State ,
80
P.3d 447 (Nev. 2003)
New trial was ordered in
sexual assault case as a result of a juror’s independent research into
the side effects of Accutane medication taken by the victim. There was a
reasonable probability that the extraneous evidence effected the jury’s
verdict given that the side effects of Accutane was a material issue in
the case and the information received by the juror tended to undermine
the defendant’s theory that the victim’s physical marks were caused by a
reaction to medicine or falling.
Stallings v. Black and
Decker, Inc. ,
796 N.E.2d 143 (Ill. App. 2003)
Trial court abused its
discretion in denying motion for new trial in wrongful death case where
the safety of defendant’s circular saw was at issue and a juror
personally investigated the matter by going to stores to look at saws
and consulting with a store clerk regarding the availability of the type
of blade the plaintiff alleged the circular saw should have been
equipped with.
Commonwealth v.
Philyaw ,
774
N.E.2d 659 (Mass. App. 2002)
Remanding for
evidentiary hearing based on affidavit from defendant’s mother whose
friend had worked with one of his jurors; juror told friend that when
panel could not reach a decision it sent two jurors to scene of crime
for information; trial court erred in concluding that it would need an
affidavit from the person who actually spoke to the juror in order to
grant the motion for a new trial.
Travis v.
Stone ,
66
S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2002)
Presumption of prejudice
not overcome in wrongful death action where juror, during break in
reconstruction expert’s testimony, went to examine scene of
accident.
State v.
Chervenell ,
2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 1764 (July 30,
2001)
Grant of new trial
affirmed in murder case where defendant claimed self defense and juror
conducted unauthorized test using calipers not admitted into evidence on
various parts of his body to see how deep victim’s wounds would have
been; concluded defendant used excessive force; and shared information
with other jurors.
State v. Coburn,
724 A.2d 1239 (Me.
1999)
In case of operating under influence of
alcohol, conviction overturned where one juror asked police officer husband about
purpose of intoxilyzer test and another tried contested maneuver in own vehicle;
prosecution did not rebut presumption of prejudice.
Bell v. State,
74 Cal. Rptr.2d 541 (Cal. Ct. App.
1998)
Grant of motion for new trial
affirmed in action for mistaken arrest because juror attempted to recreate arrest with third
party outside jury room and passed on "results" to other jurors. Also, other jurors gave
opinions claiming expertise on shoulder injuries and law enforcement investigations.
Wade v.
City of Chicago Heights ,
693
N.E.2d 426 (Ill. App. 1998
)
In civil case involving a car accident, the lower court erred in
denying the City’s motion for a mistrial based on a juror’s misconduct
in visiting the accident scene. The City was
prejudiced by the juror’s misconduct since the circumstances present at the accident scene were
directly related to one of the core issues of the case, namely whether certain barricades
were visible such that the collision could have been avoided.
State v. Spencer,
694 N.E.2d 161 (Ohio App.
8 Dist. 1997)
Conviction and sentenced
reversed where juror contacted outside sources for information and trial court did not
inquire whether juror remained impartial after his independent investigation.
Ex parte Thomas,
666 So.2d 855 (Ala.
1995)
Juror putting on pants defendant had
been wearing at time of arrest, having another juror bind his hands and attempt to reach
into his pockets to determine whether it was possible for handcuffed defendant to remove
cocaine from his pocket during ride in police car was reversible error where one juror
based her decision in part on experiment.
Ex parte Potter,
661 So.2d 260 (Ala.
1994)
Jurors' unauthorized viewing of accident
scene during a prosecution for criminally negligent homicide warranted reversal of
conviction.
Commonwealth v. Cuffie,
609 N.E.2d 437 (Mass.
1993)
Reversal required where one
juror reported that second juror made independent visit to crime scene.
Hill v. United States,
622 A.2d 680 (D.C.
1992)
Drug conviction reversed and remanded
because juror's visit to crime scene helped him to form an opinion.
State v. Pichay,
823 P.2d 152 (Haw.
1992)
In trial for firearms and propelled vehicle
violations, trial court erred in allowing jurors to use two dolls and a calculator during
deliberations and in failing to conduct inquiry on prejudice.
State v. Trammell,
484 N.W.2d 263 (Neb.
1992)
Juror improperly viewed scene of
crime; results of view were reported to other jurors, who used that information in
corroborating a defendant's controversial confession; supreme court held such
misconduct was not harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Dashnau,
591 N.Y.S. 2d 124
(N.Y.A.D. 4.Dept. 1992)
Drug conviction
reversed where juror searched for defense counsel's name in phone book and concluded
that because counsel was private attorney, he was being paid by defendant and
defendant must therefore have sold drugs to pay for services.
Smoketree-Lake Murray v. Mills Concrete,
286 Cal.Rptr.
435 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)
Judgment reversed and new trial granted in civil action alleging construction defects
against developer because of juror experimentation pouring concrete.
Williams v. State,
570 So.2d 884 (Ala. Crim.
App. 1990)
Attempted murder conviction
reversed and remanded because juror visited the crime scene. Affirmative demonstration
of prejudice was not required.
Schmiz v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co.,
546
So.2d 693 (Miss. 1989)
Civil
judgment reversed because jurors made visit to railroad crossing where accident
occurred.
In re Lasley,
505 So.2d 1263 (Ala.
1987)
Conviction for two counts of first degree
assault was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because jurors conducted
home experiments running hot water when defendant was accused of scalding children
in his care and then reported their findings to other jurors. Additionally, one juror
consulted a legal text to understand legal terms.
People v. Castro,
229 Cal. Rptr. 280 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1986)
Conviction for destroying jail
property, arson and rioting was reversed because of jury misconduct involving one juror
who used binoculars to determine whether a witness could have seen what they alleged
they could see. The court found that it was irrelevant whether the juror shared the findings
with others because that juror's deliberations were tainted by the experimentation and that
was enough to require a reversal.
Bobo v. State,
327 S.E.2d 208 (Ga.
1985)
Felony murder, burglary and assault
conviction with life imprisonment was reversed because two jurors made a trip to the crime
scene which was critical in determining the credibility of the sole eyewitness's identification
of the criminal.
Andrews v. County of Orange,
182 Cal.Rptr. 176
(Cal. Ct. App. 1982)
Inverse
condemnation judgment was reversed and a new trial was ordered because jurors
conducted a field trip to inspect homes affected by air traffic and one juror spoke to her
husband about the case after the trial had started.
Duran v. Lovato,
656 P.2d 905 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982), cert. denied,
656 P.2d 889 (N.M. 1983)
Personal injury verdict was reversed and the case remanded back to the trial court
for a hearing on jury misconduct grounds because juror speed tests were conducted in
violation of the rule that jurors should not consider extraneous influences.
Heaver v.
Ward,
386 N.E.2d 134 (Ill. App.
1979)
In civil case involving an automobile accident, a new trial was
required due to the jury foreman’s misconduct in making an independent
visit to the accident scene, preparing a diagram of the intersection
which he brought to the jury room during deliberations, and also
bringing a drivers instructional booklet into the jury room. Because
this unauthorized evidence was directly related to issues in the case,
reversal of the judgment was required.
People v.
Holmes,
372 N.E.2d 656 (Ill. 1978)
Attempted robbery conviction reversed for new trial where jurors
investigated various heels of shoes to determine what type of insignia
they would leave after hearing testimony about prints left in ground
after robbery.
Watkins v. State,
229 S.E.2d 465 (Ga. 1976)
Armed robbery conviction reversed
because some jurors went to crime scene to make factual determinations and then
reported their findings to other members of the pool.
People v. Conklin,
111 Cal. 616, 627 (Cal.
1896)
Overzealous jurors fired borrowed rifle
to check powder mark evidence. Case reversed.