 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mann6/6/2000
t in light of the fact that one of the jurors, a professional psychologist, had argued to the other jurors as to the reliability of polygraph testing generally and as to the adequacy of the administration of the polygraph test specifically at issue. The court stated in this regard:
It is not improper for a juror, regardless of his or her educational or employment background, to express an opinion on a technical subject, so long as the opinion is based on the evidence at trial. Jurors' views of the evidence, moreover, are necessarily informed by their life experiences, including their education and professional work. A juror, however, should not discuss an opinion explicitly based on specialized information obtained from outside sources. In re Malone, 911 P.2d at 486.
Applying this general rule, the court held that the psychologist- juror had committed misconduct, albeit without prejudice. Despite some of the California Supreme Court's broad language, a closer reading of the case demonstrates, as in Thacker, that it was not merely the psychologist-juror's specialized training that gave the court pause-indeed, she admitted to her fellow jurors as to not being "an expert on polygraphs." Id. at 476. Instead, it was the fact that she had specifically based her opinion "on her readings" and on "professional articles on the subject," that is, sources of authority not in evidence. Id. at 476, 486.
This is perhaps a fine line to draw, but the distinction is nonetheless critical: The California court premised its conclusion of juror misconduct upon the psychologist-juror's telling of her "fellow jurors [that] her professional reading and course work made her doubt" the testimony presented at trial, id. at 475, that is, that the psychologist-juror "told the other jurors beliefs were based on her readings," not the evidence adduced at trial, id. at 476. It was this communicated invocation of "specialized information obtained from outside sources" that the court held to cross the line between appropriate and inappropriate juror conduct. Id. at 486; accord McDonald v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 734, 738 (Ct. App. 1999) (reversing upon railwayman-juror's introduction and expansive discussion of the issue of "sensors," regarding which there had been no evidence presented or argument made at trial).
These cases reinforce our conclusion that it is not merely a juror's possession of or reliance upon his or her education or professional training that is improper. See In re Malone, 911 P.2d 476, 486. Instead, it is misconduct for a juror to invoke his or her expertise with the effect of introducing an extra-judicial influence, be it an extra-record fact, see Thacker, 596 P.2d at 509, source of authority, see In re Malone, 911 P.2d 476, 486, or issue, see McDonald, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 738.
2. Juror No. 7's statements during deliberation.
Turning to the facts before us: Juror No. 7 is a professional engineer who possesses pre-existing, technical knowledge of a general nature; he disclosed this background on voir dire and Defendant did not object to his impanelment; Juror No. 7 relied upon his professional background in formulating his subjective take on the evidence presented at trial; he shared his opinions with his fellow jurors, a presentation which his fellow jurors, not this Court, characterized as an expression of his "life experience," as "common sense," as "explaining his point of view on the testimony of Dr. Watts," as "on like a kindergartner level". In so sharing his view of the evidence, he specifically discussed the expert testimony at trial; and finally, in so examining this testimony, he noted, as emphasized by the State du
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|