187 Conn. App. 587
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Daley sued J.B. Hunt and an individual for wrongful termination and related claims; jury trial occurred in August 2016.
- After ~1 day of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict for Daley awarding $225,000; the verdict was read and each juror, including R.L., twice confirmed it on the record.
- The following day R.L. appeared at the courthouse and told the judge she did not remember the jury concluding deliberations or returning its verdict; she submitted a handwritten letter describing a memory gap and plans to investigate possible dementia/Alzheimer’s.
- Defendants moved for a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing on R.L.’s competency; the trial court denied both, reasoning postverdict memory lapse was a postverdict event and further inquiry would improperly probe jury deliberations.
- The Appellate Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a postverdict competency hearing and whether the record showed a preliminary strong showing of juror incompetence.
- The Appellate Court held the trial court erred: R.L.’s unsolicited statements and letter constituted strong evidence she likely had been incompetent during service, so a postverdict evidentiary inquiry was required; the case was remanded for such a hearing and the court retained jurisdiction over remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Daley's Argument | J.B. Hunt's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must hold a postverdict evidentiary hearing into a juror's competency after postverdict statements suggesting memory lapses | No hearing required; record (juror confirmation at verdict) showed competency | Hearing required because juror told judge she did not recall deliberations and submitted letter describing memory gap and possible dementia | Reversed: under Sullivan standard, strong preliminary evidence of incompetence existed and a full postverdict inquiry was required |
| Standard to trigger a full postverdict competency inquiry | Not met absent contemporaneous indications of incompetence | Court should require strong preliminary showing that juror likely was incompetent during service | Adopted Sullivan: requires preliminary showing of strong evidence that juror likely was incompetent before ordering full inquiry |
| Whether inquiry would improperly probe jury deliberations or violate Practice Book § 16-34 | Inquiry would necessarily impermissibly probe juror mental processes and deliberations | Competency inquiry can be focused on juror's medical condition and not on deliberation content | Court held competency hearing is permissible so long as it examines juror capacity, not internal deliberation content |
| Whether defendants must show prejudice from alleged juror incompetence | Defendants must show prejudice | Due process violated if juror was incompetent; prejudice is inherent because an incompetent juror cannot be fair | Court held prejudice need not be separately shown; incompetency itself denies due process and warrants inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Fogg, 613 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1980) (adopts high threshold: a preliminary showing of strong evidence of juror incompetence is required before a full postverdict inquiry)
- United States v. Dioguardi, 492 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1974) (juror letter and expert impressions alone did not justify further inquiry where no evidence the condition existed during trial)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (discusses Federal Rule barring juror testimony about internal deliberations but recognizes narrow common-law exception for extremely strong showing of incompetence)