Plaintiff-appellant brought this negligence action in federal district court 1 based upon diversity. The casе was tried before a six-member jury on November 3, 4 and 5, 1980, with a verdict being returned for defendant on November 6, 1980. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied and he appeals alleging the district court committed prejudicial error in going to the jury room and speaking with the jurors off the record and outside the presence of counsel. We disagree and affirm the district court’s judgment and denial of a motion for new trial.
The jury in this case had begun its deliberations at 4:25 p. m. on November 5, 1980. At 5:Í0 p. m. the jury sent a note to the court asking for clarification of some instructions. After consultation with counsel, the district court had all of the instructiоns sent to the jury. Neither party objected. Then at 5:35 p. m. the jury requested the amount of money plaintiff was asking for, and the court responded that it could not “respond to this question other than to say you should follow the instructions of law given you.” Both parties’ counsel indicated this was a satisfactory response. Then, at 6:00 p. m., the transcript indicates the following occurred:
THE COURT: It is 6:00 p. m. at night; we started at 9:00 a. m. this morning, took an hour for lunch and two fifteen minute breaks today.
The jury went out about 4:30 p. m. and they have been deliberating an hоur and a half.
I propose to ask the jury if they want to go home tonight and come back tomorrow, оr if they want to complete their deliberations tonight.
Mr. Nash objects to that procedure, and he wаnts them to stay out a while longer.
Do you want to say anything else about that, Mr. Nash?
MR. NASH: No.
(The Court left the courtroom momentarily.)
THE COURT: The jury has indicated they want to work awhile longer.
(6:15 p. m.)
(Reporter’s Note: Note number 3 read as follows:)
We would like to recess until tomorrow.
THE COURT: The jury wants to recess and come back tomorrow.
The jury was brought into the cоurtroom and informed they would be in recess until the following morning at 9:00 a. m. They were given the usual admonition not tо discuss the case during the recess.
Appellant argues that this communication with the jurors was impropеr, and also prejudicial because shortly after the ex parte communication, the jurors decided to reсess for the night. It is argued this “did not allow the jurors to render a verdict-freely and untrammeled.”
We agree this communication by the district court was improper. The United States Supreme Court has expressed its disfavor with such communications.
Where a jury has retired to consider of its verdict, and supplementary instructions *1247 are required, either because asked for by the jury or for other reasons, they ought to be given either in the presence of counsel or after notice and an opportunity to be present; and written instructions ought not to be sent to the jury without notice to counsel and an opportunity to object. Under оrdinary circumstances, and wherever practicable, the jury ought to be recalled to the cоurt room, where counsel are entitled to anticipate, and bound to presume, in the absencе of notice to the contrary, that all proceedings in the trial will be had.
Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co.,
However, it has been recognized that “a court’s ex parte communication with the jury will not require a reversal where substantive rights of parties have not been adversely affected.”
Petrycki v. Youngstown and Northern RR,
There is no evidence of prejudice in thе instant case. The court was not instructing the jury as to substantive matters, nor was either party denied the oрportunity to object and make a record. The trial court, in its denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial, stated:
The Court also advised the attorneys that it intended to simply go to the jury room door аnd make the inquiry rather than require that the jury assemble in the Courtroom. The plaintiff’s attorney’s only objectiоn to the suggested procedure related to his request that the jury be required to continue its deliberatiоns without giving them the option to recess for the night. He did not object to the manner in which the Court posed the questiоn of recess preference to the jury.
Thus it appears that appellant’s counsel did not оbject to the manner of informing the jurors, his only objection was that he wanted the jurors “to stay out a while lоnger.”
2
We are unable to find any prejudice to the appellant from the district court’s action. We cannot say this slight intrusion into the privacy of the jury warrants reversal of their verdict otherwise propеrly reached.
See United States v. Perl,
We have carefully considered all of appellant’s allegations and find them withоut merit.
Affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable William R. Overton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. This case is easily distinguished from
Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co.,
This case is also distinguished from
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,
Thus, it is not simply the action of the judge in having the private mеeting with the jury foreman, standing alone — undesirable as that procedure is — which constitutes the error; rather, it is the fact that the ex parte discussion was inadvertently allowed to drift into what amounted to a supplemental instruction to the foreman relating to the jury’s obligation to return a verdict, coupled with the fact that counsel were denied any chance to correct whatever mistaken impression the foreman might have taken from this conversation, that we find most troubling.