AL HAMPTON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A AL'S TRUCKING AND LOPE HAMPTON, PETITIONERS,
v.
JAMES A. KENNARD, JR., 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a circuit court order permitting post-verdict interviews of jurors in a motor vehicle negligence case. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to certiorari relief because neither alleged juror misconduct provided sufficient grounds to permit the interviews.
The court held that the petition for certiorari should be granted and the order permitting juror interviews should be quashed. As to the first juror, the court found he fully answered the questions asked of him during voir dire, and counsel had the opportunity to inquire further but chose not to. As to the second juror, any alleged misconduct should have been raised at trial rather than after an unfavorable verdict.
[1] A verdict may be set aside if a juror gave false information or concealed material facts.
[2] A juror fully answers questions asked if counsel had the opportunity to inquire further but chose not to.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 verdict may be set aside if it can be shown that a juror gave false information or concealed material facts”
Establishes the legal standard for juror misconduct based on false statements or concealment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAl and Lope Hampton were defendants in a motor vehicle negligence action brought by James Kennard. The jury verdict assessed comparative negligence at…
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 Concealment Of Material Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Al and Lope Hampton petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order permitting an interview of two jurors. We grant the petition.
Respondent James Kennard was the plaintiff in a motor vehicle negligence action. The jury verdict fixed the parties’ comparative negligence at 12 percent for Hampton and 88 percent for Kennard. Kennard then filed a motion for new trial, alleging in part that the verdict had been affected by juror misconduct. In connection with the motion respondent sought to interview two of the jurors based on two separate incidents.
The first occurred during voir dire when prospective jurors were asked whether they knew any of the lawyers involved in the case. One, who eventually was seated, stated that he “had dealings” with one of Kennard’s attorneys, but indicated no bias resulting from that acquaintance. The juror did not elaborate about those “dealings,” nor was he asked to do so. Kennard now claims that the juror was less than candid in his response; the attorney in question had represented the personal representative in a contested probate case, and the juror had signed an affidavit on behalf of an opposing party in that case.
The other incident occurred during the trial when, allegedly, the husband of a second juror was observed “in the company of the adjustor for the defendant’s insurance carrier.” Additionally, an affidavit submitted by Kennard stated that the juror, during a break in the trial approached both men and told her husband to “just sit there and shut up.”
As to the first episode, we recognize that a verdict may be set aside if it can be shown that a juror gave false information or concealed material facts. Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 267 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 253 (Fla.1973). However, we agree with petitioner that the record in this case indicates the juror “fully answered the questions that were asked of him.” As in Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 472 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1985), “[c]ounsel had every opportunity to inquire into all aspects of that relationship and chose not to.”
Turning to the second juror, petitioners dispute that there was sufficient evidence of misconduct. Even if there was, respondent should have brought it to the court’s attention at the time it was observed rather than waiting until after an unsatisfactory verdict. Cf. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Padilla, 545 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the order permitting juror interviews is quashed, and this case is remanded to circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harbour Island Sec. Co., Inc. v. DOE, 652 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ors were, in fact, the same individuals named in those prior lawsuits. The court stayed action on the order pending our review. This court has consistently recognized the strong public policy against juror interviews. See, e.g., Hampton v. Kennard, 633 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hackman v. City of St. Petersburg, 632 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Tucker, 608 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); State Department of Transportation v. Rejrat, 540 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
State v. Monserrate-Jacobs, 89 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…o, until after the jury rendered its verdict. Respondent should have brought his claim of alleged jury misconduct to the court’s attention at the time it was observed rather than waiting until after an unsatisfactory verdict. See Hampton v. Kennard, 633 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We grant the State’s petition and quash the order permitting a juror interview. PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED. LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Decker v. State, 267 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Betty and George Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Reasbeck v. State of Fla. ex rel. Jessie Wallace, Jr., 275 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1973)
- Frederick v. Frederick, 267 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Nissan Motor Corp. IN U.S.A. v. Ada Margarita Padilla, 545 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)