Use of Extra-Record Evidence
See IMPROPER JURY DISCUSSIONS, Personal Expertise or Experience where one or more jurors discuss personal experiences or expertise, other than where it is knowledge about the case or parties received from outside sources. See IMPROPER JURY DISCUSSIONS, Defendant's Prior Bad Acts for cases involving exposure to information about the defendant's criminal history or pending charges. See MEDIA INFLUENCE for cases involving exposure to news reports about the case or parties.
Leonard v. United States,
378 U.S. 544, 84
S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964) (per
curiam)
Prospective jurors who heard trial court announce defendant's guilty verdict in
first trial presumed incapable, under theory of implied bias, of rendering impartial verdict
on second trial on similar charges.
Fullwood v. Lee,
290 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2002)
Evidentiary hearing required in capital habeas case to determine whether juror was strongly influenced by pro-death penalty husband and whether jury considered extraneous evidence that defendant had previously been sentenced to death for the crime by another jury.
United States v. Schwarz,
283 F.3d 76 (2nd Cir. 2002)
In case involving the prosecution of a police officer for violating a detainee's civil rights, the jury's exposure to extrinsic information -- that the co-defendant had admitted the presence of a second officer at the scene of the assault -- prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. The co-defendant's statement significantly bolstered the testimony of the victim, who was the only witness to actually place a second officer at the scene, and the failure of defense counsel to call the co-defendant to testify that the second officer was not defendant likely led the jury to conclude that defendant was the second officer.
Sassounian v. Roe,
230 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2000)
The jury's consideration of improper
extraneous evidence in the form of information concerning an alleged phone call in which
the caller claimed affiliation with a terrorist organization and claimed responsibility for the
murder of the victim, a Turkish Consul General, was harmful error. The only special
circumstance upon which the jury agreed was that the murder was committed because
of nationality or national origin, and this agreement was only reached after fifteen days of
deliberation, the last hour of which included revelation and discussion of extraneous
information about the alleged phone call, which ultimately persuaded at least one juror to
change her vote to favor finding the special circumstance. (In reaching its conclusion that
this error was not harmless, the court expressly noted that, "although we may consider
testimony concerning whether the improper evidence was considered, we may not
consider the jurors' testimony about the subjective impact of the improperly admitted
evidence." But see Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) ((Carnes, J.) Allowing
uncontested use of juror affidavits about affect of prosecutor's improper closing argument
on jurors to serve as competent evidence of prejudice from improper argument).
United States v. Humphrey,
208 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2000)
Remand for full inquiry in
federal drug case where on juror told others about defendant's bad reputation; improper
for trial judge to conduct ex parte examination of foreperson and also insufficient for trial
court to conduct interrogation of only foreperson.
United States v. Davis,
177 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 1999)
Remand for Remmer hearing in drug and firearms case where alternate juror, a businessman in defendant's community, was removed for expressing to other jurors his fear of reprisal if defendant was convicted; error not to question all jurors on effects of his remarks.
Nevers v. Killinger,
169 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 1999)
Second-degree murder conviction vacated on habeas following trial of
white police officer for beating black man to death. Trial court had
refused to grant hearing or mistrial after learning that jury had
considered extraneous information about defendant’s alleged involvement
in undercover police unit rumored to harass black men, viewed movie
"Malcolm X" which included video of Rodney King beating, and heard news
report about preparations for riot in anticipation of verdict. State
court’s finding of harmless error was unreasonable and contrary to law
under AEDPA. The jury’s exposure to extraneous evidence, especially
about undercover police unit, went directly to defendant’s credibility
which was focus of trial.
United States v. Herndon,
156 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 1998)
Remanded for evidentiary
hearing where juror recalled during deliberations that he may have had prior dealings with
defendant and trial court refused to investigate.
United States v. Keating,
147 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1998)
Federal conviction of Savings & Loan owner Charles Keating reversed and new trial granted because jurors knew of, or became aware of, his state court conviction on related charges.
Eslaminia v. White,
136 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir.
1998)
Conviction reversed when a taped
interview of the defendant conducted by the police was admitted into evidence, but the
jury also listened to the other side of the tape in the jury room. The other side contained
a taped conversation between the defendant and his brother.
People v. Nesler,
66 Cal. Rptr 2d 454 (Cal. 1997)
Sanity verdict reversed where juror provided extraneous information about defendant's life and alleged habits during deliberations.
United States v. Hall,
85 F.3d 367(8th Cir.
1996)
Remand required for government to
rebut presumption of prejudice where jurors overheard bench conference where other
crimes discussed.
United States v. Harber,
53 F.3d 236 (9th Cir. 1995)
Conviction for money laundering
conspiracy reversed when case agent's 56 page report, not admitted into evidence, was
found to have been in the jury room during deliberations.
United States v. Segines,
17 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 1994)
Where trial court did not review
original tapes for intelligibility and authenticity and the tapes were not admitted into
evidence, it was error for the trial court to allow jury to take tapes into jury room. and
required vacating of convictions.
United States v. Martinez,
14 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 1994)
Remand required where jury
deliberations tainted by extrinsic evidence, including jury's use of a dictionary, jurors'
watching news accounts on television, juror's awareness of publicity, jurors' regularly
bringing newspapers into jury room and juror's informing other jurors that defendant faced
160 years' imprisonment.
United States v. Walker,
1 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 1993)
During deliberations in drug
conspiracy case, jury was exposed to transcripts of portions of videotaped testimony
deemed inadmissible; district court should have conducted Remmer hearing to determine
prejudicial impact of extraneous evidence; remanded for new trial.
Mayhue v. St. Francis Hosp. of Wichita, Inc.,
969 F.2d 919 (10th Cir.
1992)
New trial
granted where jurors in civil rights action had dictionary definitions of "discriminate" and
"prejudice"; rebuttable presumption employed.
Stephens v. South Atlantic Canners, Inc.,
848 F.2d 484 (4th Cir.
1988)
Employer
entitled to new trial based on extraneous notations on personnel files and other records--that had been altered after being admitted into evidence-taken by jury into jury room
during deliberations.
United States v. Perkins,
748 F.2d 1519, 1533 (11th Cir. 1984)
Convictions reversed where juror told others in deliberation that he knew defendant and knew where witness lived.
Gibson v. Clanon,
633 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, Clanon v. Gibson, 450
U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct. 1749, 68 L.Ed.2d 231 (1981)
Reversal required where jurors
consulted medical encyclopedia to determine rarity of defendant's blood type and whether
morphine taken by eyewitness would have affected his capacity to observe.
Paz v. United States,
462 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1972)
Hearing required following conviction for transporting drugs where jurors allowed to keep books related to drugs, drug traffic and drug problems in jury room.
Benjamin v. Fisher,
248 F. Supp. 2d 251 (S.D. N.Y. 2002)
Jury's inadvertent exposure to and consideration of inadequately redacted portion of police report detailing defendant's prior robbery arrests and probationary status, in prosecution for burglary and robbery, was prejudicial.
Georges v. Government of the Virgin Islands,
986 F.Supp. 323 (D.V.I.
1997)
Case
remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether jury improperly considered an extraneous
newspaper article indicating that the defendant had shot at the co-defendant and the co-defendant's family.
U.S. v. Brown,
913 F. Supp. 1324 (D. Minn. 1996)
Defendant was granted new trial because, during deliberations, one
juror disclosed that codefendant had been found guilty of same crime and
fined $367,000.
U.S. v. Posner,
644 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.Fla. 1986)
Motion for new trial granted in tax evasion case because jurors
received extrinsic information during both trial and deliberations,
including fact of codefendant’s conviction; jury foreperson also read
news accounts of trial and one juror visited property site on which
charges depended.
People v. Wadle,
97
P.3d 932 (Colo. 2004)
In case involving a conviction for child abuse resulting in death, a
juror committed misconduct by acquiring information from the Internet
about the characteristics and uses of a prescription drug being taken by
the defendant. Because there was a reasonable possibility that the
extraneous information would have affected the verdict of a typical
jury, the intermediate appellate court’s reversal of the conviction was
affirmed.
People v. Ault,
95
P.3d 523 (Cal. 2004)
Affirming trial court’s granting of a new trial where a juror in a
child molestation case received information from an outside source and
then shared this information with other jurors during deliberations in
an effort to bolster the credibility of the prosecuting witness.
Dryman v. Watts,
603
S.E.2d 51 (Ga. App. 2004)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for
a new trial in a negligence action based on deposition testimony of a
nonjuror who admitted she received a telephone call from one of the
jurors during deliberations asking for information related to the case,
and a cell phone bill further substantiated that the call was made from
the juror during deliberations.
Carruthers v. State,
145 S.W.3d 85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
In capital case involving an anonymous jury where evidence existed
indicating that one of the jurors may have failed to reveal that he
lived near the petitioner’s mother and had a troubled relationship with
the petitioner’s family, petitioner presented a compelling need to
interview the juror in order to determine: (1) whether the juror
willfully concealed information during voir dire; (2) whether he was
biased against petitioner based on his history with petitioner’s family;
and (3) whether the juror conveyed this information to other jurors.
People v. Romano,
8 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004).
Affirming lower court decision setting aside jury verdict where the
evidence established that the jurors and the alternate jurors discussed
the trial testimony before deliberations commenced, some jurors read and
discussed newspaper articles about the case, and there were improper
communications between the jurors and the alternate jurors during
deliberations.
Loeffelholz v. Citizens For Leaders With Ethics And Accountability
Now,
82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. App. 2004)
In defamation and malicious prosecution case, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in finding a new trial was warranted on damages
where a juror during deliberations placed before his fellow jurors
salary and retirement information that was wholly outside the evidence
and not subject to scrutiny by either party.
Pratt v. St. Christopher’s Hospital,
824 A.2d 299 (Pa. Super. 2003)
In medical malpractice case where a juror revealed post-trial that
some jurors had sought out information from outside medical
professionals on a key disputed issue, an evidentiary hearing was
required. If, on remand, the trial court finds the allegations to be
true, judgment should be vacated and a new trial ordered.
People v. Wadle,
77 P.3d 764 (Colo. App. 2003), aff’d, 97 P.3d 932 (Colo.
2004)
In case of child abuse resulting in death, the conviction was
reversed because a reasonable possibility existed that information that
a juror obtained from the Internet concerning a prescription drug taken
by the defendant, which was read to the jury, improperly exposed the
jury to extraneous information and tainted the verdict.
Bates v. United States,
834 A.2d 85 (D.C. App. 2003)
Denial of new trial motion is vacated where trial court failed to
make an adequate inquiry into a juror’s prior relationship with a
defense witness. It was illogical for the trial court to credit the
testimony of the juror, who denied harboring a bias against the witness,
while also claiming to accept the defense proffer that the witness would
present contrary testimony on a material fact – whether the juror and
witness remained on good terms after the witness’s son was injured when
left in the care of the juror. (According to the witness, she was so
angry she vandalized the juror’s car following the incident with her
son.) Under these circumstances, the trial court was required to assess
the credibility of the witness, and then question other jurors if a
possibility of bias was found to exist.
Buisker v. Thuringer,
648 S.W.2d 817 (S.D. 2002)
In wrongful death suit, state trooper married to bailiff commented to
juror that defendant had liability insurance, thus forming basis of
jury’s belief that parties were in cahoots; new trial
ordered.
State v. DeStefano,
71 A.2d 592 (N.J. Super. 2001)
Receiving stolen property conviction reversed where trial court
failed to conduct hearing after juror stated that he could no longer be
fair or properly deliberate after learning extraneous
facts.
Lindsey v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises,
555 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. App. 2001)
New trial ordered in personal injury case where juror looked up
"willful" and "wanton" in dictionary.
Hodge v. Commonwealth,
68 S.W.3d 338 (Ky. 2001)
Remand for full evidentiary hearing where defendant in robbery/murder
case alleged that prosecutor visited jurors daily; jurors were provided
with newspapers and alcohol; jurors decided on guilt before
deliberations began; and other jury tampering occurred.
State v. Shaia,
2000 WL 710102 (Del. Super. Mar. 20, 2000), aff'd, 765 A.2d 953 (Del.
2000)
New trial granted where jury was inadvertently provided with court clerk's "trial
notes" during deliberations; noted contained references to courtroom events about which
jury should not have known, e.g., evidentiary rulings, notes on motions and rulings, etc.;
the court concluded that this information was "inherently prejudicial."
Sunrise Enterprises, Inc., v. Mid-South Rd. Builders, Inc.,
987 S.W.2d 674 (Ark.
1999)
Civil judgment reversed in property dispute where juror brought real estate
contract into deliberations and showed to other jurors.
Duchainey v. State,
736 So.2d 38 (Fla. App. 4
Dist. 1999)
Remanded for hearing
where it was discovered after verdict that jury room contained photocopied and highlighted
pages from an unauthorized dictionary and thesaurus. Held that if alleged misconduct
proved at hearing, it could not be harmless error.
State v.
Bisaccia ,
724 A.2d 836
(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999
)
Trial court erred by refusing to grant mistrial or order inquiry in
racketeering trial despite numerous allegations of misconduct, including
jury’s exposure to newspapers in deliberation room; judge’s ex
parte communication with juror who indicated he could not
be fair; and jurors’ expressed concerns about being followed by man from courtroom.
Hearing is ordered, if possible given the six years since trial. If
a hearing is not possible, retrial will be required.
State v. Garza,
991 P.2d 905 (Kan. App. 1999), cert. denied, Kansas v. Garza, 528
U.S. 929, 120 S.Ct. 325, 145 L.Ed.2d 253 (1999)
Reversible error found where jurors
discovered, read and discussed on-point case left in jury room; conviction for drug
possession overturned.
State v. Hood,
724 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio App.
1999)
Where juror looked up "aiding and
abetting" in Black's Law Dictionary found in district attorney's office and shared definitions
with fellow jurors, mistrial in aggravated robbery case approved of by court affirming
conviction after retrial, refusing to reverse on double jeopardy grounds).
Caroll v. State,
990 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1999)
Aggravated robbery
convictions reversed where file folder containing photographic array and taken into jury
room also had prior mug shot of defendant which jurors reviewed.
Pearson v. Fomby,
688 So. 2d 239 (Ala.
1997)
Case remanded where juror stated in
affidavit that he consulted dictionary for meaning of word "standard," and told other jurors
what he had found; trial court required to hold proceedings to determine whether
dictionary definition influenced jury.
Duran v. State,
57 Cal. Rptr.2d 890 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1997)
Relief granted where juror
impermissibly considered defendant's sentence, and jury considered a newspaper article
criticizing the criminal justice system.
People v. Nesler,
941 P.2d 87, 66 Cal. Rptr
2d 454 (Ca. 1997)
Trial court erred in
denying defendant's motion for a new trial where juror both obtained prejudicial
information about the defendant from a stranger at a bar and relayed the information to
other jurors during deliberation.
People v. Budzyn,
566 N.W.2d 229 (Mich.
1997)
During the trial of two white police
officers for the murder of a black man, jurors were exposed to the film Malcolm X, media
reports that the city was preparing for a riot in the case of an acquittal, and information
that the officers had been members of a racial law enforcement group known as STRESS.
Finding that there was a real and substantial possibility that the extraneous influences
could have affected the jury, the Michigan Supreme Court conducted a harmless error
analysis and reversed the conviction of one defendant.
Collins v. State,
701 So.2d 791 (Miss.
1997)
Trial court committed reversible error by
sending a Black's Law Dictionary into the jury room after the jury requested a definition
of premeditation. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that prejudice was presumed
because the extraneous material was introduced to the jury by the court rather than by
accident or by a third party.
State v. Henning,
545 N.W.2d 322 (Iowa
1996)
Defendant met burden of proving
prejudice where jurors learned of defendant's previous drunk driving convictions during
vehicular homicide case.
State v. Hightower,
680 A.2d 649 (N.J. 1996)
prejudice presumed and new sentencing
required where juror in capital case gave other jurors extraneous victim impact evidence
and jury returned death sentence, despite removal of offending juror and limiting jury
instructions.
State v. Richards,
466 S.E.2d 395 (W.Va.
1995)
Criminal case reversed in part and
remanded for a hearing on potential juror misconduct. Defense counsel submitted motion
prior to sentencing alleging that a juror had improperly conducted independent research
by seeking a definition of "malice" in a dictionary during jury deliberations. Reference to
a dictionary during deliberations is misconduct.
Allers v. Riley,
901 P.2d 600 (Mo.
1995)
Personal injury verdict was reversed and
remanded for a new trial because bailiff provided the jury with two dictionaries. The jurors
used the dictionaries to define "proximate cause" and "prudent" in ways other than
provided by state law.
State v. Brooks,
520 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1994)
Conviction for delivery of controlled substance was reversed and remanded because juror informed others that defendant's business partner had been tried and convicted of drug related offense.
Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Reeves,
628
So.2d 368 (Ala. 1993)
Court found
prejudice where juror stated that another juror's statement concerning her experience with
defendant affected her decision.
Fulton v. Callahan,
621 So.2d 1235 (Ala.
1993)
Action for equitable relief judgment
reversed and remand for a new trial because of jurors' use of dictionary to define
"wantonness" and "oppression."
State v. Owen,
510 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. App.
1993)
Evidentiary hearing required where
jurors looked up "reasonable" and "doubt" in dictionary in perjury case.
State v. Magliaro,
611 A.2d 422 (Conn. App. Ct.
1992)
Negligent homicide case
remanded because trial court failed to conduct an investigation into prejudice from jurors'
use of medical texts.
Hollywood Corporate Circle Associates v. Amato,
604 So.2d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1992)
Tort verdict was reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors consulted
a police handbook.
State v. Tammetta,
624 So.2d 433 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
Reversed where trial court allowed written statements of witnesses into jury room in violation of state law.
State v. Cornell,
845 P.2d 1094 (Ariz. App. 1992)
Reversal where juror looked up words "aggravate" and "assault" in dictionary in aggravated assault case.
People v. Dashnau,
591 N.Y.S. 2d 124 (N.Y.App. Div. 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.
Chew v. State,
804 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. App. 1991)
Rape conviction reversed and case remanded for new trial when juror discussed other similar charges pending against defendant and jurors exposed to unintroduced exhibit documenting complainant's unwillingness to testify due to media harassment.
Haight v. Aldridge Electric Company, Inc.,
575 N.E.2d 243 (Ill. App. 1991)
In negligence action regarding an automobile accident, the unauthorized production of almanac evidence as to time of sunset on the date of the accident during jury deliberations was grounds for reversal, where the nature of the evidence related directly to crucial issue in case, i.e., visibility, and was not merely cumulative.
Jordan v. Brantley,
589 So.2d 680 (Ala.
1991)
Appellate court affirmed trial court's
decision to reverse a civil verdict and grant a new trial. The court held that it was
misconduct for the jury foreperson to have taken a dictionary into the jury room for
purpose of defining "prudent" and "reasonable" and to then discuss their meaning from
the dictionary.
Loving v. Baker's Supermarkets, Inc.,
472
N.W.2d 695 (Neb. 1991)
Slip-and-fall
judgment reversed and remanded when attorney's notes including notations on medical
expenses were inadvertently taken to the jury room by bailiff.
Chew v.
State ,
804 S.W.2d 633
(Tex. App. 1991
)
Rape conviction reversed and case remanded for new
trial where juror discussed other similar charges pending against defendant and jurors exposed to unintroduced
exhibit documenting complainant's unwillingness to testify due to media harassment.
McCray v. State,
565 So.2d 673 (Ala. Crim.
App. 1990)
Second degree kidnaping and
assault conviction reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors read portions of
the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions which led one juror to erroneously assert that the
jury could not convict the defendant of the lesser included offense.
Glage v. Hawes Firearms,
276 Cal.Rptr. 430 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1990)
Civil judgment was
reversed and new trial granted because of jurors' use of dictionary to define
"preponderance."
Jones v. Sieve,
249 Cal. Rptr. 821 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1988)
Court affirmed the granting of
a new trial because jurors used a reference book to define "terms that were subject to
deliberation."
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.
Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth,
361 S.E.2d 436 (Va.
Ct. App. 1987)
Conviction for
second degree murder was reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors used
an almanac to determine probable time of sunrise on date of the killing.
Dumas v.
State ,
491 So.2d 1083
(Ala. Crim. App. 1986
)
Conviction reversed where juror discussed
fact that he had known defendant since he was young, that defendant had always
been a "bad boy" and that he believed the killing was for revenge.
State v. Abell,
383 N.W.2d 810 (N.D.
1986)
Conviction for gross sexual imposition was
reversed and remanded for a new trial because jury used dicti1onary to define "force" and
force was the only issue for the jury's consideration.
Moore v. State,
324 S.E.2d 760 (Ga.
1984)
Voluntary manslaughter conviction reversed
because juror consulted a Readers Digest publication entitled "You and the Law" in order
to gain clarity on definition of manslaughter. The source consulted contained a different
definition of manslaughter from that of Georgia state law.
State v.
Poh ,
343 N.W.2d 108
(Wisc. 1984
)
Three counts of DUI/negligent
homicide remanded for new trial; jury's contact with extraneous information not harmless because
it related to defendant's history of drinking and driving.
Golden v. Ballard,
654 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. Ct.
App. 1983)
Judgment in civil case
reversed and remanded because uncontested evidence was presented that one juror
changed his mind after consulting a math text.
Kirby v. Rosell,
648 P.2d 1048 (Ariz. Ct.
App. 1982)
Superior court affirmed grant of
new trial in a civil suit because jurors used a road map, with information identical to that
presented at trial. Court held that "[i]t is enough that the unauthorized evidence directly
relates to the issues in the case and may have improperly influenced the verdict." Id. at
1051.
Frede v. Downs,
428 N.E.2d 1035 (Ill. App. 1981)
In civil case involving a boating accident, the verdict in favor of the defendant had to be set aside due to the misconduct of a juror in secreting his own book on boating into the jury room which was referenced by the jury during deliberations.
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 was
reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors investigated various heels of shoes
to determine what type of insignia these shoes would leave after they heard testimony
about prints left in the ground after the robbery which occurred when there was snow on
the ground. The court held that "[h]ere the extraneous information improperly brought to
the jury's attention was in the nature of evidence crucial to the question of defendant's
identification with which he had neither been confronted at trial nor had the opportunity to
refute." Id. at 661-662.
State v. Steinmark,
266 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 1978)
District court ruling denying motion for new trial overruled and evidentiary hearing ordered because jurors considered defendant's prior conviction, prison sentence and reputation of the bar where defendant worked as being place where illegal drugs were readily obtained.
Gilliland v. State,
93 So.2d 745 (Ala.
1957)
Second degree murder conviction was
reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors were sent into the same room
which had been used for evidence and the victim's clothes, not introduced as evidence,
were left in the room and the jurors inspected the clothing.
Russ v. State,
95 So.2d 594, 600 (Fla.
1957)
Holding that "[w]here a juror on
deliberation [relies on or] relates to the other jurors material facts claimed to be within his
personal knowledge, but which are not adduced in evidence . . . it is misconduct which
may vitiate the verdict," in remanding for evidentiary hearing.