McGee v. City of Chicago
979 N.E.2d 470
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- McGee sued the City of Chicago and several officers for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress following a criminal case where he was acquitted of murder but asserted a fabricated confession caused wrongful incarceration.
- Evidence at trial included McGee’s statements about memory lapses and the detectives’ testimony linking memory lapses to the investigation and alleged confession.
- During voir dire, the court admonished jurors not to research the case or use internet sources; one juror reportedly conducted independent internet research on memory lapses and brought related information into the jury room.
- The bailiff disclosed that a juror had information from the internet, and the court considered voir dire but ultimately did not question the juror or identify who brought in the material.
- Defendants moved for a new trial arguing the failure to voir dire and remove the juror who brought outside information tainted the verdict; the circuit court denied the motion.
- The appellate court held that the circuit court abused its discretion and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by not voir dire | McGee | McGee | Yes; court abused discretion |
| Whether extraneous information prejudiced the verdict | McGee | McGee | Extraneous information prejudiced; reversal required |
| Whether the issue was preserved for appeal | McGee | McGee | Preserved; not waived |
| Whether the judgment should be reversed due to failure to determine content and impact of the information | McGee | McGee | Yes; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornton v. Garcini, 364 Ill. App. 3d 612 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (extraneous information presumed prejudicial; burden shifts to show no prejudice)
- People v. Collins, 351 Ill. App. 3d 175 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (extraneous jury information may be used to impeach verdict)
- Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 2000) (prejudice standard for verdict reliability; substantial prejudice required)
- Stallings v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 342 Ill. App. 3d 676 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (burden on movant to show potential prejudice from extraneous information)
- Truchon v. City of Streator, 70 Ill. App. 3d 89 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. 1979) (preservation and review of trial court rulings on procedural issues)
- Watseka First National Bank v. Ruda, 135 Ill. 2d 140 (Ill. 1990) (preserves review of trial court rulings where issues argued and decided on merits)