 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. Drexler11/14/2002
Evidence Code section 1150 provides that: "Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined."
Defendants contend that Evidence Code section 1150 applies only to affidavits regarding juror misconduct to challenge the validity of a verdict. While we agree that section 1150 is not applicable and does not decisively prohibit reliance on declarations such as the ones offered here, we find applicable many of the policy considerations that motivate section 1150. Drawing a distinction between admissible proof of overt acts and inadmissible proof of the jurors' subjective reasoning process "serves a number of important policy goals. It prevents a juror from impugning one or more jurors' reasoning processes. It excludes unreliable proof of thought processes and thereby preserves the stability of verdicts. It deters the harassment of jurors by the losing side seeking to discover defects in the deliberative process and reduces the risk of post-verdict jury tampering. It also assures the privacy of jury deliberations. [Citations.]" (People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1261-1262.)
Here, the declarations were offered as proof of the subjective reasoning processes of the individual jurors, and of what the jurors' collective decision would have been had they deliberated and come to a conclusion on the issue of causation. Defendants' purpose in offering the declarations was closely akin to an "inquiry as to the validity of the verdict." (Evid. Code, ยง 1150.) In essence they suggested that the verdict could be treated as including findings on all of the issues presented in the case, simply because they persuaded the jurors to sign their self-serving form declarations.
Under these circumstances, finding inadmissible juror declarations such as those offered by defendants serves to exclude unreliable proof of thought processes and thereby preserves the integrity of verdicts, deters harassment of jurors by litigants seeking to gain additional benefit from a verdict that will not support such benefit, reduces the risk of post-verdict jury tampering, and promotes the privacy of jury deliberations. It also guards against undermining the importance of the deliberative process by refusing to consider purported conclusions reached by individual jurors as to issues on which the jury did not collectively deliberate. In short, important policy considerations support the trial court's refusal to consider the jury declarations presented here.
Disposition
The judgment in favor of defendants Rodolfo and Isabel Ramirez, as modified in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion, is affirmed. The judgment in favor of defendant David Drexler is affirmed. The order awarding costs, including expert witness fees and discovery referee fees, in favor of defendants is affirmed. The order denying an award of section 2033, subdivision (o) expenses to defendants is affirmed.
In the interest of justice, the parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
We concur:
HASTINGS, J.
CURRY, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|