ROBERT POLICARI AND SHEILA POLICARI, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD CERBASI AND FRANCES G. CERBASI, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
In this automobile personal injury case, the Policaris appeal a judgment for the defense after the trial court denied their motion for mistrial when jurors were exposed to a newspaper article stating that the Policaris' medical witness had been charged with criminal racketeering for insurance fraud. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court's own expressed doubt about whether the article affected the verdict outcome warranted a new trial.
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. Because the trial court itself expressed doubt that it could determine whether the newspaper article affected the verdict outcome, reversal was required to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial and maintain public confidence in jury trials.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial due to jury taint is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A new trial may be required as a matter of public policy to maintain confidence in the integrity of jury trials when a jury is tainted.
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“It is within the trial court's discretion to grant a new trial on the ground that a jury has been tainted and its ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse.”
Establishes the standard of review for mistrial denials based on jury taint
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Policaris sued for damages in an automobile personal injury case. On the day jury deliberations were to begin, all jurors except the alternate rea…
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 Fair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Robert and Sheila Policari, plaintiffs in an automobile personal injury action, appeal a judgment for the defense. They contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for mistrial. Their motion was made when it was learned that, on the day jury deliberations were to begin, all members of the jury except the alternate had seen a newspaper article which stated that the Poli-caris’ medical witness had been charged with criminal racketeering for insurance fraud. Specifically the articles related that the witness had altered patient records so that he could bill insurance companies for medical treatments never performed.
The trial court and counsel for the parties questioned the jurors individually prior to deliberations about what they had seen and whether the article would influence a decision in the case. It is apparent from the transcript that the court considered that at least two jurors were tainted by the newspaper article. He gave the defense the choice of which of the two would be replaced by the alternate and defense counsel selected the one he felt to have been most affected by the article. The trial court was reluctant to grant a mistrial after having devoted a week to try the ease in a “log-jammed” court system.
It is within the trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial on the ground that a jury has been tainted and its ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Keith v. Russell T. Bundy & Associates, Inc., 495 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
A new trial may be required under some circumstances as a matter of public policy for the purpose of maintaining confidence in the integrity of jury trials, but such relief will ordinarily be denied where the act or conduct complained of, does not, in the opinion of the trial court, threaten the integrity of the jury or verdict or public confidence in trial by jury in any serious sense.
Snelling v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 236 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (footnote omitted).
It is apparent that the trial court considered at least one of the remaining jurors to have been affected by the newspaper article even after the replacement with the alternate juror. Although a cautionary instruction was given, there is no suggestion that it cured the problem. The order denying the post trial motion for a new trial included a candid finding, “[t]hat it is impossible for the Court to make a determination as to whether the newspaper article had an effect on the outcome of the trial....” We cannot affirm the judgment with that degree of doubt expressed by the trial court.
It is a basic premise that each of the parties are entitled to a fair trial. New trials have been allowed when it is suspected that a jury could have been contaminated by newspaper articles. See, e.g., Huffman v. Heagy, 159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1964).
The judgment is vacated and we remand for a new trial.
JUDGMENT VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.
W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc., 668 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…181 (Fla. 1991).3 A new trial based on complained-of conduct or improper contact may be required under “some circumstances as a matter of public policy for the purpose of maintaining confidence in the integrity of jury trials.” Policari v. Cerbasi, 625 So. 2d 998, 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing Snelling v. Florida E. Coast Ry., 236 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)). While a party is not necessarily entitled to a perfect trial, a party is entitled to a fair one. Id. The combination of the juror’s relation…
-
MCI Express, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. & Ford Motor Credit Co., 832 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…jury. There can be no doubt that the jury’s consideration of the unedited tape containing the insurance fraud conversation was highly prejudicial, which was precisely why [*800] the trial court excluded it in the first place. See Policari v. Cerbasi 625 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(new trial warranted where the jurors had seen a newspaper article stating that the plaintiffs’ medical witness had been charged with criminal racketeering for insurance fraud). The trial court erred in admitting any portion…
Authorities Cited
- Theda Keith v. Russell T. Bundy & Assocs., Inc., 495 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Huffman v. Heagy, 159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Snelling v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., Inc., 236 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- State v. Andres, 166 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1964)