Tomikia Davis v. Abbas Husain, M.D. (072425)
106 A.3d 438
N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiff Tomikia Davis sued her former employer Dr. Abbas Husain under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation; the case turned largely on witness credibility.
- At trial Husain raised his right hand and swore the oath but did not place his left hand directly on the Bible; the jury returned a $12,500 verdict for Davis.
- After the verdict and after the jury was discharged, the trial judge had an unrecorded, ex parte conversation with jurors; one juror remarked she was surprised Husain did not touch the Bible.
- The judge later informed counsel of that juror comment in chambers; no on-the-record inquiry of jurors occurred and counsel were not present for the judge’s conversation.
- Husain raised the juror comment in post-trial submissions and appealed, arguing the ex parte contact and the juror’s remark warranted a new trial; the Appellate Division split, affirming the verdict by majority and dissenting that reversal was required.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether post-verdict, ex parte judge–juror communications are permissible and remanded for further proceedings about the juror comment while adopting a bright-line prohibition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Husain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial judge may have post‑verdict ex parte discussions with discharged jurors | Such informal post‑verdict contacts are improper but do not here justify relief because no prejudice shown | Judge’s ex parte conversation with juror violated procedures and created appearance of bias warranting new trial or inquiry | Court held: Post‑verdict ex parte communications are prohibited unless part of a Rule 1:16‑1 hearing on good cause, and then must occur on the record and with counsel present |
| Whether a juror’s comment about defendant not touching the Bible required a mistrial or remittitur | No; juror remark did not show prejudice or influence on verdict; extraordinary relief not warranted | Yes; the comment and the judge’s handling (off‑the‑record) could have tainted deliberations and required inquiry/new trial | Court remanded for further proceedings to permit a proper inquiry under Rule 1:16‑1 to determine whether jury misconduct/prejudice occurred; did not presume prejudice |
| Proper procedure when extraneous or potentially prejudicial information reaches jurors | Any inquiry must be narrowly tailored, on the record, and conducted by the trial judge with counsel present | Same: insisted that the trial judge failed to follow Rule 1:16‑1 and Code of Judicial Conduct | Court clarified Rule 1:16‑1 standards: good cause required; inquiry limited to effect of extraneous matter (not juror mental processes); judge should conduct questioning in presence of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Ertle v. Starkey, 292 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1996) (disapproved informal post‑verdict judge–juror colloquies; judges should generally refrain from such interaction)
- State v. Walkings, 388 N.J. Super. 149 (App. Div. 2006) (remanded where judge spoke off the record to juror; absence of record imperiled due process and required further exploration)
- State v. Athorn, 46 N.J. 247 (1966) (calling back a jury is extraordinary and requires strong showing of harm from misconduct)
- State v. Morgan, 217 N.J. 1 (2013) (ex parte discussions with a deliberating jury are plainly improper; set standards for prejudice analysis)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (warning that judge–juror off‑the‑record conversations can generate misleading impressions of judicial views)
- Brandimarte v. Green, 37 N.J. 557 (1962) (trial judge must investigate use of extraneous information in deliberations; judge should conduct juror questioning)
- Kociolek v. [placeholder], 20 N.J. 92 (1955) (good‑cause standard for juror inquiry where extraneous information can prejudice verdict)