ORANGE COUNTY, ETC., PETITIONERS,
v.
PATRICIA FULLER, ETC., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Matters Inhering In The Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order scheduling a post-trial interview of jurors. Respondents’ motion to permit interview of jurors is not supported by affidavit, and the allegations are speculative, conclusory, or concern matters that inhere in the verdict itself. See Marks v. State Road Dept., 69 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1954); Clark v. Merritt, 480 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. den. 488 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1986); Kirkland v. Robbins, 385 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. den. 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1981); National Indemnity Co. v. Andrews, 354 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. den. 359 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1978); Brassell v. Brethauer, 305 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Unless there are sufficient allegations of juror misconduct relating to matters which are extrinsic to the verdict, inquiry into the deliberations of a jury is prohibited. This long-standing rule protects jurors who have performed their duty in a lawful manner from harassment, and protects the verdict itself from unfounded challenges which only hamper the efficient administration of justice. As respondents’ motion to permit interview of jurors was legally insufficient, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in scheduling the interview. Therefore, we grant the petition, issue the writ, and quash the order scheduling a post-trial interview of jurors.
WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005)…urts have held that a witness’s inability to recall making a prior statement is not synonymous with providing trial testimony that is inconsistent with a prior statement. See James v. State, 765 So. 2d 763, 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Calhoun v. State, 502 So. 2d 1364, 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (deeming it improper to impeach a witness who testified that she could not recall stating that she had a reputation as an aggressive female police officer with the testimony of another witness who heard her make such a state…
-
James v. State, 765 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…atement made to Roosevelt Brown. Further, we also hold that it was error to allow the impeachment because Jones’ trial testimony that he had no recollection was not truly inconsistent with his previous statement made to Brown. See Calhoun v. State, 502 So. 2d 1364, 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On this matter, we agree with the reasoning employed in State v. Staley, 995 P. 2d 1217, 1220, 165 Or.App. 395 (2000): The controlling issue on appeal is whether it was appropriate to impeach [a witness’] asserted lack of…
-
Ramirez v. State, 922 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…generally Gilliam v. State, 582 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla.1991) (noting that no affidavits had been filed in concluding that the motion did not allege grounds to believe trial publicity had reached juror till after the verdict); Orange County v. Fuller, 502 So. 2d 1364, 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (quashing an order scheduling post trial interviews of jurors because the motion was not supported by affidavits and its allegations were “speculative, conclusory, or concern[ed] matters that inhere in the verdict itself’).…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marks v. State Rd. Dep't, 69 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1954)
- Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Sue L. Andrews et vir., 354 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Kirkland v. Robbins, 385 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Clark v. Merritt, 480 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Castillo v. State, 305 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Brassell v. Brethauer, 305 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)