Mach v. Stewart,
129 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.
1997).
Not strictly speaking jury misconduct, but an instructive
case: trenchant comments on voir dire of
a social worker who claimed knowledge
of psychology and of sexual abuse held to have tainted
the rest of the jury pool
and resulted in reversal of conviction for sexual conduct with a
minor.
...
Campopiano v. Volcko,
61 A.D.3d 1343, 877
N.Y.S.2d 568 (NY AD 2009).
In automobile accident case where jurors
had to decide whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury,
plaintiff was
entitled to a hearing on claim of juror misconduct after juror told trial court
post-verdict that she had enjoyed her jury service “except for the last two
hours when she had to
obtain a light box so she could read [plaintiff's] MRIs to
the jury due to her medical expertise as
a respiratory therapist.” Hearing was
required despite affidavit from juror submitted by
defendant denying that she
had held herself out as an expert or interpreted the diagnostic films
for the
other jurors.
Barber v. Shoprite of Englewood & Associates.
966 A.2d 93 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2009).
In personal injury case where
foreperson of the jury was a practicing attorney, law professor and
state
senator who published an article about his experience as a juror after the
trial, trial court’s
finding that the foreperson had not committed misconduct by
using his knowledge and status to
influence the jury was not supported by the
record. The foreperson, inter alia, explained
instructions to the other jurors
rather than submitting questions to the trial court as the jurors
were
instructed to do. “[O]ur review of the entire record in this case convinces us
that [the
foreperson’s] explanations to the jury had a ‘tendency’ to influence
the verdict. That ‘tendency,’
coupled with the cumulative trial errors, deprived
defendant of a fair trial.”
...
Hutchinson v. Clare Rose of
Nassau, Inc.,
835 N.Y.S.2d 698 (N.Y. A.D. 2007).
In action to
recover damages for personal injuries, new trial ordered on the issue of damages
for
past and future pain and suffering where informal discussions between the
court, counsel and the
jurors post-verdict revealed that one juror had
apparently disregarded much of the neurologic and
medical testimony, and had
instead utilized his own knowledge of medicine gained from his
training and
employment as a physical therapist in arriving at his verdict as to past and
future
pain and suffering, and trial court refused plaintiff’s counsel’s request
to question the juror under
oath. “By denying the plaintiff's counsel the right
to place the juror under oath in order to
explain his conduct during
deliberations, the Trial Judge frustrated the impartial judicial
inquiry
necessary to determine if there was an improper influence upon the
remaining members of the
jury panel.”
...
Cunningham v. St.
Alexis Hospital Medical Center,
758 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio App. 2001),
discretionary appeals not allowed.
New trial required in medical
malpractice case where one juror reported during deliberations and
before the
verdict that another juror, who was a nurse, interjecting extraneous information
about
standard of care and other medical information. When informed about the
juror’s action, the trial
court failed to conduct any inquiry. The appellate
court found that a post-verdict inquiry would
be futile because it would be
impossible to ascertain extent of damage done by the juror’s
interjection of
extraneous information.
People v. Maragh,
729 N.E.2d 701 (N.Y.
2000).
Defendant was entitled to a new trial where a juror who was a
nurse expressed her expert opinion
on a material issue in the case, and that
opinion was distinct from and in addition to the medical
evidence introduced at
trial.
...
Diaz v. State,
743 A.2d 1166 (Del.
1999).
Bilingual juror's indication to other jurors outside of court
that she disagreed with court
interpreter's translation of foreign language
testimony violated defendant's right to fair trial; juror
became unsworn,
uncross-examined, and unqualified witness.
...
Young v.
Brunicardi,
232 Cal. Rptr. 588 (Cal. App. 1986).
Negligence
judgment reversed where police officer juror presented own experiences on
ticketing
procedures to influence jury
...
Lumbermens Mutual
Casualty Co. v. Cummings,
618 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. Civ. App.
1981).
Worker's compensation judgment was reversed and the causes
remanded for a new trial because
jurors discussed their own personal experiences
with back problems.
Elston v. Sherman Coca-Cola & Dr. Pepper
Co.,
596 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980).
Negligence judgment
reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial because jurors discussed
their
own work experiences and these discussions had an affect on the award for loss
of future
earnings.
Vincent v. Goodman,
568 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.
Civ. App. 1978).
Suit over oral contract was reversed and remanded
for a new trial because jurors discussed their
own personal experiences with
having wells drilled and, as a result, several jurors changed
their
votes.
...
Gibbs v. State,
291 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1956).
Criminal conviction and sentence were reversed
because, during punishment deliberations, juror
remarked to those jurors wanting
to ask for suspended sentence that other jurors wanted
defendant to get forty
years, after which the jurors who were originally in favor of a
suspended
sentence voted to give defendant some time in the
penitentiary.