HARBOUR ISLAND SECURITY CO., INC., PETITIONER,
v.
JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE, 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.
Harbour Island Security Co. sought certiorari to quash a trial court order granting respondents' motion for juror interviews. The appellate court reversed, finding that the motion for juror interviews—based on allegations of possible juror misconduct and an anonymous letter suggesting jury bias—was too speculative and failed to establish the requisite prima facie showing of prejudice required before interviewing jurors.
The trial court erred in granting the motion for juror interviews. The motion and supporting materials were purely speculative and failed to establish a prima facie case that prejudice resulted or that juror misconduct was of such character as to raise a presumption of prejudice.
[1] A writ of certiorari may be granted to quash a circuit court order allowing juror interviews.
[2] A party seeking a juror interview must make a prima facie showing that prejudice resulted from juror misconduct or that the misconduct was of such a character as to raise…
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 intelligence“This court has consistently recognized the strong public policy against juror interviews.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle guiding the court's analysis and the reason for requiring a high threshold before permitting juror interviews.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents Jane Doe and John Doe sued Harbour Island Security Co. for negligence-related injuries and loss of consortium. During jury deliberations, …
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 Interview cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Harbour Island Security Co., Inc., seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the circuit court granting Plaintiffs First Amended Motion for Juror Interview. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Respondents, Jane Doe and John Doe, sued Petitioner for injuries and loss of consortium allegedly sustained as a result of Harbour Island’s negligence in providing security. During deliberations, the jury indicated that it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The parties then agreed to accept a majority verdict, which was ultimately returned in Harbour Island’s favor and a final judgment was entered.
Shortly thereafter, the Does moved for a new trial and for juror interview claiming juror misconduct had occurred because one or two jurors had possibly failed to disclose prior lawsuits. Several days later, the motion was amended to include a second basis for new trial; namely, that an anonymous letter1 received by counsel for the Does indi cated a possibility that one or more jurors were biased in favor of Harbour Island from the beginning and that outside influences may have intimidated the jurors from rendering a verdict in the Does’ favor. After a hearing on the juror interview aspect of the motion, the trial court indicated its willingness to allow an interview of one or two jurors who could possibly have written the letter and granted the motion to that extent. The court stated that the motion would fail if brought solely on the basis of juror misconduct in not divulging prior lawsuits, given the Does’ uncertainty of whether the alleged jurors 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 1989).
In this instance, the motion and supporting affidavit together with a vague and anonymous letter are purely speculative and, as such, fail to make the requisite prima facie showing that “prejudice resulted or that the misconduct was of such a character as to raise a presumption of prejudice.” Nationwide, 608 So. 2d at 88.
The petition is granted, the writ is issued and the order below is quashed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . The letter read:
JANE DOE V. HARBOUR ISLAND.
MY WIFE PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN ME I MUST LET YOU KNOW THE LADY DID NOT GET A FARE [sic] TRIAL.
AMONG OTHERS I COULD NO GO AGAINST THE ISLAND FEAR OF MY FAMILY. YOU ARE TRYING TO OVERTURN A EMPIRE WHO IS NOT GIVE UP I AM ASHAMED PLEASE RELAY THIS TO THE LADY. JANE DOE!
RESPECTFULLY
JUROR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leisa Parra v. Bartolo Cruz and Janitza Lopez, 59 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
-
Laycock v. TMS Logistics, Inc., 209 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…augle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 133 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); State v. Monserrate-Jacobs, 89 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Hannon v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 56 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Harbour Island Sec. Co. v. Doe, 652 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But these cases did not address — or even mention — the irreparable-harm component, and we cannot view these as holding that irreparable harm to “the party seeking review,” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 99 So. 3d…
-
Pesci v. William S. Maistrellis, M.D., 672 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…the writ of certiorari to review the propriety of a trial court order granting a motion for jury interview to ensure that such an order will not result in a breach of the sanctity of jury deliberations. See, e.g., Harbour Island Security Co. v. Doe, 652 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 662 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1995); Ray Cooke Enters., Inc. v. Parsons, 627 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Orange County v. Piper, 585 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Moler v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1157 (Fl…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Rejrat, 540 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 608 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hackman v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 632 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Al Hampton v. Kennard, 633 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)