Ruby Hiser v. XTO Energy, Inc.
768 F.3d 773
8th Cir.2014Background
- Hiser sued XTO for property damage allegedly caused by vibrations from drilling; trial contained no evidence about hydraulic fracturing ("fracking").
- During deliberations, jurors asked whether the well had been "just drilling" or also fracking; the court instructed the jury to decide only from admitted evidence and jury recollection.
- After verdict for Hiser, XTO moved for a new trial alleging extraneous, prejudicial information was discussed in the jury room and submitted affidavits from juror Carrie Tranum; Hiser submitted affidavits from juror Novella Watson and foreperson Michael Horn.
- Jurors agreed Horn asked about fracking and explained it; they disagreed on whether jurors discussed fracking or earthquakes after the court’s instruction and on the scope of any discussion.
- The district court denied the new-trial motion and declined to subpoena Horn after attempting voluntary contact; XTO appealed the denial of the new trial and the refusal to subpoena Horn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hiser) | Defendant's Argument (XTO) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror discussion of fracking/earthquakes constituted extraneous prejudicial information requiring a new trial | Any juror testimony showed only brief, general mention; jury followed court instruction; no prejudice | Jurors heard extraneous, prejudicial information (fracking and earthquakes) that could have tainted the verdict | Court: No abuse of discretion — any extraneous discussion was brief/general, the court’s instruction cured risk, and no reasonable possibility verdict was altered |
| Whether juror testimony/affidavits about deliberations may be used | Juror affidavits supported finding that discussions were innocuous and jurors complied with instructions | XTO relied on juror affidavits and testimony to show extraneous information; sought additional testimony from foreperson Horn | Court: Admitted testimony limited to whether extraneous information was brought up (Rule 606(b)(2)(A)); district court appropriately considered juror statements and testimony presented |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to subpoena the foreperson for testimony | Hiser: district court adequately investigated using affidavits, testimony from two jurors, and attempted contact with Horn | XTO: Horn’s testimony was essential to resolve whether misconduct occurred and to assess timing/scope of discussion | Court: No abuse of discretion — district court conducted reasonable inquiry (affidavits, two live testimonies, attempted interview) and was not required to compel Horn’s testimony |
| Whether the case is analogous to prior cases warranting new trials for juror misconduct | Hiser: prior cases involved clear, outcome-altering misconduct (out-of-court testing, jurors considering external verdicts) unlike here | XTO: argued juror-extrinsic information could have influenced jurors regarding causation | Court: Distinguished Anderson and Brown (which supported new trials) and likened facts to Moore (upheld denial); here misconduct, if any, was innocuous and unlikely to alter verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 186 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 1999) (new-trial review; juror out-of-court testing and prejudice analysis)
- Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 576 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2009) (extrinsic juror research that is essentially innocuous may not warrant new trial)
- Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1983) (presumption that juries follow judge’s instructions)
- Brown v. United States, 108 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 1997) (extraneous jury considerations of outside convictions/fines can warrant new trial when jurors ignore limiting instructions)
- Yannacopoulos v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 75 F.3d 1298 (8th Cir. 1996) (reasonableness of presuming jury compliance with instructions)
- United States v. Swinton, 75 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1996) (definition of extrinsic influences to juries)
- United States v. Williams, 97 F.3d 240 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court discretion in handling juror-misconduct allegations)
- Wise v. Kind & Knox Gelatin, Inc., 429 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review: affirm if reasonable person could reach same decision)