TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
BETHANIE DIANNE JACKSON, 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.
Travelers Insurance Company sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion to interview jurors in a motor vehicle accident case. The court held that a jury inquiry requires sworn factual allegations establishing grounds for a new trial, and granted the writ, quashing the order because plaintiff's motions were not sworn and merely sought to explore juror subjective thoughts about the verdict.
The court held that a jury inquiry is never proper absent sworn factual allegations meeting the Hamilton standard, and that plaintiff's unsworn motions merely seeking to explore juror subjective thoughts about how they arrived at their verdict do not warrant a post-verdict jury interview.
[1] A party seeking to interview jurors must establish adequate legal grounds for a challenge to the jury.
[2] A jury inquiry is improper absent sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new trial.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“a jury inquiry is never proper absent 'sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new trial using the standard adopted in Hamilton.'”
Establishes the strict requirement for permitting post-trial jury interviews
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a jury verdict in favor of defendant insurance company in a personal injury motor vehicle accident case, a juror informed plaintiff's counsel th…
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
PER CURIAM.
After a jury trial in a personal injury motor vehicle accident case resulting in a verdict in favor of the defendant insurance company, a juror informed one of plaintiff’s counsel that while the plaintiff was testifying, a defendant’s counsel (who was not petitioner’s appellate counsel) had looked toward the jury box and mouthed (lip-synched) the word “liar” several times. The plaintiff filed a motion to interview the jurors. The trial judge granted the motion. The defendant insurance company seeks by writ of certiorari for this court to quash the order granting a jury interview. We grant the petition and quash the order. While a trial court’s ruling on a post-trial motion to interview jurors is discretionary,1 a party must establish ade quate legal grounds for a challenge to the jury.2
In Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1991), the court held that a jury inquiry is never proper absent “sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new trial using the standard adopted in Hamilton.
” (footnote in original) 579 So. 2d at 100. In the instant case, it appears that there were no sworn factual allegations. Neither the Amended Motion for New Trial nor the Motion to Interview Jurors is sworn, and no affidavit is attached thereto or referenced therein. Although a letter allegedly from the foreman of the jury was filed with the trial court, it is not a sworn statement.
This case is like Orange County v. Piper, 585 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), where this court concluded that “[e]ven if true, the sworn factual allegations ... fail to warrant a post verdict jury interview.” Id at 1183. This court explained:
The factual matters alleged do nothing more than proffer the opinion of a juror about the reasons the jury arrived at its verdict. There is no allegation that an actual, express agreement was reached by the jurors to disregard their oaths and ignore the law or the court’s instructions, or that they considered evidence outside the record. There is no allegation that the verdict was determined by aggregation and average, by lot, game or chance or other artifice or other improper manner. The matters raised in plaintiff’s motions and affidavit merely indicates one juror’s frustration over the verdict. Counsel’s desire to explore the subjective thoughts, impressions and opinions of the jurors, as to how they arrived at their verdict is not permitted. Such a fishing expedition invades the sanctity of the verdict-forming process itself. For well-established policy reasons, this is not permitted.
Id. Such matters inhere in the verdict and a jury may not be asked about same. Id.; See Roland v. State, 584 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The writ of certiorari is granted and the order granting a jury interview in this case is quashed.
WRIT GRANTED, ORDER QUASHED.
COWART, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Shere v. State, 579 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1991).
. D.O.T. v. Rejrat, 540 So. 2d 911, 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
. The court in Maler explained:
Under this standard, the moving party first must establish actual juror misconduct in the juror interview. Once this is done, the party making the motion is entitled to a new trial unless the opposing party can demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the juror misconduct affected the verdict. [State v.] Hamilton, 574 So. 2d at 129 (quoting Paz v. United States, 462 F. 2d 740, 745 (5th Cir.1972).
579 So. 2d at 100, n. 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sentinel Commc'ns Co. v. Hon. John W. Watson, III, 615 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…eached verdict); Mitchell v. State, 527 So. 2d 179 (Fla.1988) (juror felt pressured); Sims v. State, 444 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1983) (consideration of defendant’s failure to testify is misunderstanding of instructions); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 610 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (defense attorney mouthed liar toward jury during plaintiff’s testimony); Rabun and Partners, Inc. v. Ashoka Enterprises, Inc., 604 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (juror said verdict rendered against doctor because he was rich;…
-
Pa. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Sunrise Club, Inc., 711 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…nc., 458 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There is also no merit in the claim that the trial court should have permitted a post-verdict jury interview. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1991); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 610 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Life From the Sea, Inc. v. Levy, 502 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla.1987). The judgment for the carrier on appeal in case numbers 96-3080 and 96-3081 is therefore affirmed. II. Turning to…
-
State v. Devoney, 675 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…on juror misunderstood significance of guilty vote; thought only majority needed to convict); Ray Cooke Enters., Inc. v. Parsons, 627 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (allegation juror misunderstood instructions); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 610 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (allegation jury was influenced by derogation mouthed by attorney); Rabun and Partners, Inc. v. Ashoka Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (allegation jury ruled against party because he was rich and did…
Authorities Cited
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1991)
- Shere v. State, 579 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1991)
- Pedro Luis Rodriguez y PAZ v. United States, 462 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Orange Cnty. v. Piper, 585 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Roland v. State, 584 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Rejrat, 540 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)