 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mann6/6/2000
A>; see also Hard v. Burlington N.R.R., 870 F.2d 1454, 1461-62 (9th Cir. 1989). Reliance upon this standard reflects not only the important policies implicated by motions for new trial, see State v. Gonzales, 105 N.M. 238, 241, 731 P.2d 381, 384 (Ct. App. 1986) (noting interest in enforcing lawful verdicts), but also the trial court's unique position in passing upon such questions in the first instance, see Allyn v. Boe, 943 P.2d 364, 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (noting in review of claimed juror misconduct that trial court "saw both the witnesses and the trial proceedings, and had in mind the evidence").
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The trial, which included the testimony of thirty-nine witnesses, lasted for more than a month. Upon its deliberation, the jury convicted Defendant, among other counts, of unlawfully killing his son. Some time after the verdict, Defendant's representatives interviewed several of the jurors, including Juror No. 7, and moved for a new trial claiming that Juror No. 7 had improperly shared "calculations, and expert opinions" during deliberations. Specifically, Defendant alleged:
6. The juror took it upon himself to serve the function of prosecution expert witness during deliberations by doing calculations, explaining physics and engineering to the remainder of the jurors and conducting experiments which discredited the opinions given by Dr. Watts.
7. That same juror actually presented calculations which he had independently done in order to discredit the opinions of Dr. Watts. He had them written on a sheet of paper which he copied on to the easel.
We restrict our remaining discussion of the facts to the issue of alleged juror misconduct involving Juror No. 7.
Juror No. 7
Defense counsel knew of Juror No. 7's professional status and technical background prior to selecting him to serve on the jury. Indeed, prior to voir dire, an extensive process in which the parties and court invested approximately a full week, counsel had prospective jurors complete a detailed questionnaire which inquired, among other matters, as to each potential juror's background, employment, and education. Juror No. 7, in his response to the questionnaire, informed counsel of his technical background and his employment as an engineer with the Sandia National Laboratories. Then, upon individual voir dire-during which counsel and the court spoke to Juror No. 7 individually and on the record-he again disclosed that he worked at Sandia National Laboratories and that " training is as an engineer." In response to further questioning from the court, he stated that despite his background, he would be able to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence at trial. Defendant made no objection to Juror No. 7 serving on his jury.
Doctor Watts' Testimony
At trial, Defendant called Dr. Alan Watts to testify as an expert witness regarding the general probability of Noel being killed in a manner consistent with Defendant's theory. Doctor Watts described his understanding of the series of events necessary to support Defendant's theory of the accident:
he boy trips on a rug . . . and starts to lose balance as he goes forward. He now puts his arms out, and his left arm goes over the top of a nearby sink and catches the top of the hamper a couple inches higher. There are various items on top of the hamper. . . .
And there's also a screwdriver underneath. His hand sweeps across and somehow moves the screwdriver off the hamper. At the same time, he is falling forward. So what we have is a boy already starting to move and a screwdriver starting from a height of about two feet
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|