WALTER SCHMITZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
S.A.B.T.C. TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
A dissenting judge argued that a motion for a limited jury interview regarding alleged bailiff misconduct should have been granted, as the allegations presented a reasonable basis for inquiry.
The dissenting judge would have denied the petition for common law certiorari, finding that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the motion for a jury interview.
[1] Post-trial juror interviews are an extraordinary and intrusive procedure that should be rarely granted.
[2] Allegations of juror misconduct must be substantial to warrant questioning a juror after a verdict.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought to prevent a limited interview of jurors who allegedly received improper instructions from a bailiff about deciding the case quickl…
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 Jury Interview cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioners seek this court’s writ of certiorari to quash the order below permitting the post-trial interview of a juror. We issue the writ and quash the order. A person who knows one of the jurors told an attorney involved in the lawsuit that the juror told him that the said juror felt pressured into reaching a quick decision in the case. He said the juror told him that a court bailiff said the judge was going on vacation so the jury should reach a verdict by the next day.
We cannot agree that the allegations of misconduct are sufficient to warrant the extraordinary and intrusive procedure of questioning of a juror. Orange County v. Fuller, 502 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). There is no substantial allegation that any juror was led to a verdict because of some misconduct or was improperly influenced in reaching a verdict. The jury took three and one-half hours to consider its verdict and rendered it long before the judge was supposedly going out of town. A jury poll was conducted and no hint of any irregularity came out until over three weeks after the trial.
Post-trial juror interviews should be rarely granted and the sanctity of the jury process as well as the privacy rights of the jurors themselves should be closely guarded and protected. See Sentinel Star Co. v. Edwards, 387 So. 2d 367, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), pet. for rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1981); National Indemnity Co. v. Andrews, 354 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1978); Velsor v. Allstate Insurance Co., 329 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 336 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.1976).
The order permitting a jury interview is quashed.
WRIT ISSUED, ORDER QUASHED.
COWART, J., concurs.
DANIEL, J., dissents with opinion.
DANIEL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Petitioners seek to prevent a limited interview of jurors on the question of whether they were “rushed” to a verdict by a bailiff improperly instructing the jury that they “had to decide the case before Saturday because the judge was going out of town.” The factual situation presented at trial was somewhat complicated and the matter was submitted to the jury at 1:15 p.m. on Friday. The jury returned a verdict at 4:45 p.m. the same day.
It is virtually impossible for this court, or the trial court, to say whether the jury felt unduly rushed by an instruction from someone other than the trial judge in arriving at its verdict in the absence of an interview of the jurors as requested by the respondent.
The motion for interview was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(g). While it was filed beyond the ten day limit provided for in the rule, the mo tion alleged what appears to be good cause for exceeding the deadline by setting forth that it was filed on the day the alleged impropriety was discovered.
A litigant seeking a jury interview is not required to, in his initial motion, conclusively establish the alleged prejudicial conduct. Rather, he must establish only a reasonable basis for such inquiry. The respondent met that test and the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the motion for interview. I would deny the petition for common law certiorari.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…nterview Ms. Graham. The sanctity of the jury process and the privacy of the jurors are paramount to our judicial process and are closely guarded. Rodgers v. After Sch. Programs, Inc., 78 So. 3d 42, 45 (citing Schmitz v. S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Ass’n, 537 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)). Thus, juror interviews are highly disfavored and rarely granted. Id. It is an equally well-established principle of our jurisprudence that a party may not stand idly by and allow the proceedings to continue without objecti…
-
Sterling v. David Feldbaum, M.D., 980 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…pe of the interview. Post-trial juror interviews should be “rarely granted and the sanctity of the jury process as well as the privacy rights of the jurors themselves should be closely guarded and protected.” Schmitz v. S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Ass’n., 537 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, “[w]here there are reasonable grounds to believe concealment of a material fact has taken place, a party is entitled to conduct a jury interview.” Singletary v. Lewis, 584 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Alleg…
-
State v. Rejrat, 540 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…recognize that: Post-trial juror interviews should be rarely granted and the sanctity of the jury process as well as the privacy rights of the jurors themselves should be closely guarded and protected. Schmitz v. S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Ass’n, Inc., 537 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). [*913] To establish grounds authorizing the interview of a jury, a party must provide evidence that the jury’s verdict was infected by matters extrinsic to the verdict. Matters which are intrinsic to the verdict are not grounds…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark Summer Velsor and Georgia Lee Velsor v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Ronald Miller, 329 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Sue L. Andrews et vir., 354 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Sentinel Star Co. v. The Honorable Claude R. Edwards, 387 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Orange Cnty. v. Fuller, 502 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Calhoun v. State, 502 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)