After the jury verdict was returned, Juror Number 4
contacted the Defendant’s corporate representative requesting that he or one of
the defense attorneys contact him.
During counsel’s conversations with Juror Number 4,
counsel learned that the jury allegedly rushed its deliberations and
pressured Juror Number 4 to return a verdict for the Plaintiff.
Defense counsel advised the Court that Juror Number 4
was coerced and filed a motion requesting that the Court interview Juror
Number 4 regarding her jury service. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing
that Juror Number 4 should not be interviewed as Defendants raised concerns
only about the jury’s internal deliberation.
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that a verdict
may not be impeached by any Juror’s testimony regarding “any matter or
statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the
effect of anything upon that or the other Juror’s mind.” However, a verdict
may be impeached by a jury’s testimony as to “extraneous prejudicial
information” or “outside influence.”
The Court turned to case law on the issue. In
United
States v. Tanner, 483 U.S. 107 (1987), the Supreme Court held that substance
abuse was not an “outside influence” pursuant to Rule 606(b) such that the
Jurors could be questioned about their jury service. In
Tanner, two Jurors
claimed that other jury members were abusing marijuana and alcohol during
the course of the trial and that they believed the drug abuse was impairing
the other jurors’ ability to render a verdict.
In the present matter, influencing factors were
football and a long weekend. Closing arguments concluded at approximately
2:30 p.m. on Friday, January 14, 2011. The jury returned a verdict at
approximately 5:00 p.m. that same day. January 14, 2011 preceded a holiday
weekend also coincided with the Baltimore Ravens’ playoff game against the
Pittsburgh Steelers. Juror Number 4 alleged that the jury wished to conclude
deliberations as quickly as possible in light of the holiday and football
game. As such, the foreperson refused to request certain exhibits and
ignored Juror Number 4’s vote finding that the Defendant was not guilty of
the acts alleged. As Plaintiff indicated, however, the jury deliberated for
three hours, and when polled following the verdict, Juror Number 4 rose and
stated the verdict was hers individually.
Here Defendants raised only issues of internal jury
coercion. The facts bear no indication of an external force improperly
influencing the jury. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to
question Juror Number 4 regarding her jury service.
As an aside, the Court noted that Defense Counsel’s
contact with Juror Number 4 was improper and a violation of Local Rule
107.16 which provides that “[u]nless permitted by the presiding judge, no
attorney or party shall directly or through an agent interview or question
any Juror, alternate Juror or prospective Juror with respect to that Juror’s
jury service.” See Local Rule 107.16 (D. Md. 2010). In this instance,
Counsel should have sought permission from the Court to contact the Juror
when Counsel was notified by its client of the Juror’s communication.
Top
