in Re Southcross Energy Partners, GP LLC, 04-17-00626-CV

Background

Plaintiffs tried a wrongful-death/personal-injury case against Southcross; after five days the jury returned a verdict awarding about $31.4 million, which was read in open court, polled, and accepted by the trial court.
The trial court discharged the jury and released jurors from the no-contact instructions; after discharge several jurors (including the foreperson) spoke with Plaintiffs’ counsel and others.
Plaintiffs’ counsel reported an alleged juror misunderstanding (that damage figures would be multiplied by life expectancy), and the trial court recalled the discharged jurors to the courthouse.
The court questioned jurors about their deliberations, received their testimony about what they intended (despite defense objections invoking Texas Rules 606/327), and concluded some jurors had misunderstood the verdict.
The court ordered the (unsworn, unre-instructed) former jurors to redeliberate, provided a red pen, and the group returned revised, much larger numbers on the same verdict form; the court accepted and polled on that second set of numbers.
Relator (Southcross) filed a mandamus petition arguing the recall, juror testimony, redeliberation, and acceptance of a second verdict were unlawful and an abuse of discretion for which appeal is not an adequate remedy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may recall a discharged jury that has mingled with the public and counsel	Court may recall jury under inherent authority (citing Dietz) to correct an improper or unintended verdict	Once discharged and mingled, jury cannot be reconvened; recall after contact was prohibited and taints deliberations	Trial court’s recall after discharge and contact was an abuse of discretion (mandamus grounds)
Whether juror testimony about deliberations is admissible to impeach an accepted verdict	Juror testimony shows a misunderstanding of the charge; that justifies reexamination and correction	Rule 606/Rule 327 bar juror testimony about deliberative statements and mental processes except for outside influences or qualification issues	Receiving jurors’ testimony about deliberations violated Rules 606/327 and settled Texas law; such evidence must be stricken
Whether the court may order the recalled group to redeliberate and return a new verdict	Because jurors misunderstood the charge, court can have them correct their answers	Once discharged, the jurors no longer constitute a jury; redeliberation after discharge and outside contact is impermissible; Rule 295 doesn’t authorize this	Allowing redeliberation by discharged, tainted jurors and accepting a second verdict was an abuse of discretion
Whether mandamus is appropriate (adequacy of appellate remedy)	Any error could be remedied on appeal from a later judgment	Judgment on the second verdict would impose irreparable procedural and commercial harms and procedural chaos; appeal is inadequate	Mandamus is appropriate because the trial court’s actions threaten irreparable harm and undermine jury trial finality

Key Cases Cited

Caylat v. Houston E. & W. Ry. Co., 252 S.W. 478 (Tex. 1923) (longstanding principle that once a jury is discharged and mingles with the public it cannot be reconstituted)
Branham v. Brown, 925 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (it is error to reconvene a jury after it has been discharged and mingled with the public)
Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (U.S. 2016) (federal court narrowly recognized inherent power to recall a jury only where discharge was brief and jurors had no post-discharge contact)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (Rules 606/327 limit juror inquiry to outside influences or qualification issues)
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000) (policy reasons for protecting jury deliberations and finality)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus available where extraordinary circumstances make appellate remedy inadequate)
In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2013) (mandamus review proper where new-trial order or comparable action lacks substantive merit and threatens waste)