CLAUDIA J. BROOKS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MILTON M. THOMAS, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
HERNDON AMBULANCE SERVICE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellant challenged a trial court's order denying a motion to interview a juror who reported that another juror had discussed case evidence before deliberations in violation of court instructions. The appellate court reversed, holding that a juror interview should have been permitted to determine whether the juror's premature comments were based solely on trial evidence or included extraneous information that may have tainted the jury.
The appellate court held that a juror interview should have been permitted to determine whether the offending juror's statements were based solely on trial evidence or included extraneous information that may have tainted the jury. The trial court should allow questioning of the reporting juror and potentially other jurors to assess whether the jury was significantly prejudiced by the misconduct.
[1] A juror's violation of an instruction not to discuss the case before deliberations does not automatically warrant a new trial or a juror interview.
[2] A juror interview may be warranted when there is an allegation that a juror imparted information from outside the trial and evidence to other jurors.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While we are of the opinion that such orders should rarely be granted and the scope of the interview should be narrowly limited we find that an interview should have been permitted here.”
Establishes the appellate court's general principle that juror interviews are disfavored but can be required when specific circumstances exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter an adverse jury verdict, a juror contacted appellant's lawyer and reported that another juror, George J. Thomas, had violated the court's instru…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Juror Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for juror interview. While we are of the opinion that such orders should rarely be granted and the scope of the interview should be narrowly limited we find that an interview should have been permitted here.
A juror contacted appellant’s lawyer after an adverse jury verdict. This juror said one of the other jurors violated the court’s instruction to refrain from discussing the case until the conclusion of the trial and submittal of the case to the jury. The lawyer submitted a motion and affidavit which said, in part:
3. Mrs. Sikes related that during the course of the trial it became apparent that George J. Thomas, intentionally disregarded the court’s instruction, in that he discussed the testimony of witnesses, and commented on the testimony and evidence as the case proceeded. Specifically Mr. Thomas would make comments during the course of the trial to the effect that he believed “the boy” was dead the minute he hit the ground, even though no such testimony was heard during the trial, and even though the court had admonished the jury not to discuss the evidence until it was time to deliberate.
It was improper for this juror to talk about the case before deliberations began and the juror may have been guilty of contempt of court for doing so. That misconduct does not warrant a new trial or a juror interview by itself. However, if the juror was imparting information from outside the trial and evidence then a new trial may be warranted. Therefore, an interview is necessary here to determine whether the opinion expressed by the offending juror was merely his own based upon what he heard from the trial or whether he said it came from knowledge he gained from outside sources. More precisely the question is what impression his statements made upon the other jurors — were they influenced by his comments in the belief the comments were based upon extrinsic matters. If so, then perhaps the jury was significantly tainted. If not, then all’s well. See Snook v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Upon remand the parties should be permitted to inquire of juror Sikes regarding the statements she heard and whether it was conveyed to her, or she gained the impression that the opinion of the offending juror was based upon facts learned separate from the trial or based only upon the evidence. If the former then further questioning of other jurors is warranted and maybe a new trial. If not, then nothing further is required. This is not to say the court cannot permit further questioning of other jurors in either event if the trial judge feels it is warranted. The order denying juror interview is reversed.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1997)…rnate juror was more than improper, it was indeed presumptively prejudicial); Scott v. State, 619 So. 2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993) (labeling premature deliberations, in the form of jury comments, as improper); Brooks v. Herndon Ambulance Service, 510 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (finding premature jury discussions to be improper). We have said that, once a prima facie case of potential prejudice has been established, the burden is on the State to rebut the a presumption of prejudice. Amazon, 487 So…
-
Ramirez v. State, 922 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…t the trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to interview juror when the allegations in the motion and affidavit established prima fa-cie showing of juror misconduct and remanding for juror interview); Brooks v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., 510 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (reversing the denial of a motion for juror interview). At any evidentiary hearing after an opportunity for juror interviews on remand; the initial burden will be on the defense “either to show that prejudice resulted or t…1 / 3
-
Williams v. State, 793 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…rnate juror was more than improper, it was indeed presumptively prejudicial); Scott v. State, 619 So. 2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993) (labeling premature deliberations, in the form of jury comments, as improper); Brooks v. Herndon Ambulance Service, 510 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (finding premature jury discussions to be improper). We have said that, once a prima facie case of potential prejudice has been established, the burden is on the State to rebut the ... presumption of prejudice. Amazon, 487…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Snook v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)