Rodgers v. After School Programs, Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 165
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Wrongful death action by Janet and Douglas Rodgers against After School Programs, Inc.
- Rodgers sought post-trial juror interviews based on nondisclosure during voir dire.
- Jurors #4, #8, #9, and #16 had prior court experiences; questioning was limited and imprecise.
- Circuit court denied the interview motion.
- Court applied De La Rosa three-part test; Rodgers failed to show entitlement due to lack of diligence and questioning deficiencies.
- Court affirmed denial of interviews and declined to reach materiality of undisclosed information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodgers are entitled to post-trial juror interviews. | Rodgers alleges juror nondisclosure warrants a new trial. | Interviews should be rare and require clear concealment evidence. | No entitlement; interviews not warranted. |
| Whether Rodgers satisfied the De La Rosa three-part test. | Information was material and concealed; timing appropriate. | Questioning was imprecise and diligence lacking. | Rodgers failed the third prong; not entitled to a new trial. |
| Whether nondisclosure was attributable to Rodgers’ lack of diligence. | Rodgers’ counsel did not elicit the information. | Lack of precise questioning excuses nondisclosure. | Yes; failures attributable to plaintiffs’ lack of diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sterling v. Feldbaum, 980 So.2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (limits on post-trial juror interviews; concealment requires clear showing of materiality)
- Singletary v. Lewis, 584 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (establishes standard for when the jury interview may be warranted)
- Albertsons, Inc. v. Johnson, 442 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (precludes interviews based on mere speculation about concealment)
- Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97 (Fla.1991) (three-part De La Rosa framework for post-trial interviews; entitlement requires new-trial showings)
- Gamsen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 68 So.3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (concealment requires straightforward voir dire questions and clarified responses)
- Birch v. Albert, 761 So.2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (ambiguity in juror responses must be clarified; nonconclusive responses do not prove concealment)
- Davis v. State, 778 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (no irregularities in verdict when no bases for juror interviews)
- De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla.1995) (establishes three-part test for juror-interview entitlement)