 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moodenbaugh v. Stock8/30/1999
disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.
We apply a two-part test to determine whether juror misconduct warrants a new trial. We ask first whether the alleged extrinsic evidence actually constitutes misconduct, and second, whether the misconduct affected the verdict. "The injection of information by a juror to fellow jurors, which is outside the recorded evidence of the trial and not subject to the protections and limitations of open court proceedings, constitutes juror misconduct."
To determine whether a juror has injected information outside the recorded evidence of the trial, the court properly considers juror affidavits. But the court will not consider matters "inhering in the verdict." Matters that inhere in the verdict are those that relate to the collective or individual thought processes leading to the verdict.
Here, the alleged misconduct is that juror Hoyer imparted her experience and expertise as a lawyer to the jury. Specifically, Moodenbaugh alleges that Hoyer made inaccurate statements of law by asserting that oral contracts are unenforceable; that she explained trial tactics and procedure; and that she usurped the Judge's role by further explaining matters that were the subject of jury instructions, such as contract law and COBRA benefits. But none of these remarks, however undesirable, constitute extrinsic evidence. Rather, they are within the realm of the opinions and life experiences of a juror who happens to be trained in the law.
In Richards, a medical malpractice case, juror Geisler had certain medical training. The Richards sought a new trial upon discovering that Geisler had stated her opinion that the child's birth defects were caused not by the doctors' negligence but by a fever the mother had suffered while pregnant with the child. We affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial, stating:
"The interpretation of the evidence interjected by Geisler may well be outside the realm of a typical juror's general life experience and would not usually be introduced into the jury's deliberations. However, in this case, on voir dire juror Geisler's background was fully disclosed and the Richards did not remove her from the jury."{}
Here, Hoyer similarly disclosed her legal education during voir dire. Moreover, the fact that she had attended law school was explicitly discussed during the trial when Hoyer recognized one of Stock's lawyers as a law school classmate. Moodenbaugh therefore had two opportunities to remove Hoyer from the jury during voir dire and during trial. Instead, he indicated that he had "no problem" with her participation on the jury. Because Hoyer's background was fully disclosed and because she injected no extrinsic evidence, we find no abuse in denying Moodenbaugh's motion for a new trial on this basis.
We affirm the Judgement.
WE CONCUR:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|