Bosman v. Riverside Health System, 66 N.E.3d 481

Plaintiff (August Bosman, special administrator) sued Riverside Health System for pressure ulcers suffered by decedent Joan Bosman; case proceeded to jury trial.
Twelve jurors plus two alternates were empaneled; juror Dariel Dewit was a seated juror.
During deliberations the jury sent three notes reporting a deadlock and that one juror (Dewit) would not change her position and might be biased by prior medical experiences.
The court retained the alternates during deliberations and, after questioning Dewit and the jury foreperson, excused Dewit and replaced her with an alternate; the jury was instructed to restart deliberations.
Plaintiff moved for a mistrial; the motion was denied. The reconstituted jury returned a defense verdict.
On appeal plaintiff argued the court erred by replacing a deliberating juror with an alternate retained improperly during deliberations, denying the right to a unanimous jury verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by retaining alternates during deliberations and replacing a deliberating juror	Retention and substitution violated 735 ILCS 5/2-1106(b) and prejudiced plaintiff by exposing jurors to outside influence and prior deliberations	Replacement was justified by juror bias and parties had agreed to accept an 11-person verdict (defense sought removal)	Court reversed: retention of alternates and substitution after deliberations began was error and an abuse of discretion because remaining jurors had formed opinions and were exposed by the inquiry
Standard of review for juror-substitution decisions	De novo because constitutional unanimity right implicated	Abuse of discretion	Court applied abuse of discretion (jury management decisions)
Whether trial court’s inquiry into juror’s bias was proper after deliberations began	Inquiry and disclosure of deliberations prejudiced plaintiff and revealed jury positions	Inquiry necessary due to alleged nondisclosure and bias	Court concluded the post-deliberation inquiry exposed jurors to outside influence and contributed to prejudice
Prejudice requirement for reversal after statutory violation	Substitution of juror warrants reversal if prejudice shown under totality of circumstances	No prejudice because jury instructed to restart and verdict was polled	Court found prejudice: original jurors had formed views, inquiry revealed deliberations, and alternates were improperly retained

People v. Roberts, 214 Ill. 2d 106 (discretion in jury management; factors for assessing prejudice after juror substitution)
People v. Gallano, 354 Ill. App. 3d 941 (options when jury deadlocks; mistrial vs. continued deliberation)
Addis v. Exelon Generation Co., 378 Ill. App. 3d 781 (trial court discretion in excusing jurors)