133 So. 3d 1235
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff sought certiorari review of a trial court order allowing a post-verdict juror interview.
- Trial produced an initial verdict over $300 million, remitted to about $36 million, then remanded for new damages trial.
- A new verdict awarded about $11.2 million; final judgment entered October 17, 2013.
- October 23, 2013, foreperson left a voicemail alleging something wrongful occurred; court ordered no contact with jurors.
- January 4, 2014, court ordered limited in-camera review of the foreperson’s text message and allowed written proposed questions; broader juror interviews deferred.
- Petitioner argues the rule 1.431(h) interview standard is not met and that the inquiry improperly invades juror privacy; court denies certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the limited in-camera inquiry under rule 1.431(h) was lawful | Foreperson message is abstract; no sworn misconduct shown | Inquiry justified to determine legal basis for potential challenge | Yes, limited inquiry permissible |
| Whether there was actual juror misconduct supporting an interview | Voicemail vague; no evidence of concrete misconduct | Potential misconduct basis exists; text message reviewed | No actual misconduct shown; limited inquiry allowed as prelude |
| Whether the inquiry invaded jury deliberations or juror privacy | Order intrudes on privacy and deliberations | Inquiry is limited and not an intrusion into deliberations | Not an invasion; proper scope for preliminary inquiry |
| Whether sworn testimony is required to order juror questioning | Sworn affidavits not presented | Court can rely on information coming to court; not require sworn testimony | Sworn testimony not required for this limited inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1991) (precludes inquiry into subjective juror impressions; allows overt acts)
- Schmitz v. S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Ass’n, 537 So.2d 130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (juror interview certiorari context; initiation matters)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 ((1954)) (presumption of prejudice for certain misconduct)
- State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1991) (actual juror misconduct required; burden on movant to show prejudice)
- Amazon v. State, 487 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1986) (misconduct with potential prejudice; proof required)