User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: What Should Trial Court Do About Post-Verdict Juror Letter?

  1. #1

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post What Should Trial Court Do About Post-Verdict Juror Letter?

    What Should Trial Court Do About Post-Verdict Juror Letter? -- Interesting issue. On March 11, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of Madora Jones, Administrator of the Estate of ReDon Jones v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al., 2019-0390. The issues in the case deal with confidentiality of jury deliberations and finality of jury verdicts in civil cases.

    After a jury had trouble reaching a verdict, they were instructed to keep deliberating. Thereafter a juror had to leave and one was replaced and deliberations continued. The jury wrote again that they were deadlocked but the court instructed to keep going. Later, at 9:00 on a Friday evening, they again said they were deadlocked but the court told them to keep going and that they'd have to come back Monday if they hadn't agreed. 15 minutes later, they ruled in the Cleveland Clinic's favor.

    Counsel for Jones filed a motion for a mistrial on the following Monday. While the motion was pending, the trial court held a hearing because the court had received a letter from a juror. The juror wrote
    that the jury was frustrated by the deadlock, and some, including the author of the letter, made the decision to switch their votes after being told that they would need to return the following Monday—which the jury took to mean they could be deliberating indefinitely. The juror also wrote that if they had not been kept late on that Friday or knew that Monday would be the last day before being dismissed, votes would not have been changed. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial. Jones appealed.

    The Appeal -- In a unanimous opinion the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed. The Eighth District did not agree that the trial court should have sua sponte declared a mistrial but found that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Jones’ mistrial motion. Because the jury stated on several occasions that it was deadlocked, and then reached a verdict only minutes after being informed that they would need to return to continue deliberating the following week, the trial court should have granted Jones’ motion for a mistrial. The juror’s letter provides even more support for a finding of a
    mistrial because it confirms that the only reason for the verdict was to avoid further deliberation. The trial court should not have relied on Ohio Rule of Evidence 606(B) to exclude the letter from its
    consideration of Jones’ mistrial motion because Rule 606(B) precludes the juror from testifying at a later proceeding about the original verdict, which the juror who wrote the letter did not do.

    The Cleveland Clinic has appealed arguing that the CA should not inquire into the motivations of the jury's verdict absent evidence of threats, bribery or other improper conduct.

    What say you?


    cropped-expanded-books.jpg
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. #2
    Points: 123,366, Level: 85
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,684
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    173984
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,702
    Points
    123,366
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    25,436
    Thanked 26,625x in 16,267 Posts
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know much about the law, but I've always thought requiring a jury to make a "unanimous" decision is counterproductive. I don't know why it can't be a three-quarter or four-fifths decision. Congress, local leaders, and the SCOTUS are all allowed to make decisions even if they can't reach a unanimous consensus.

    Sending a jury back to deliberate more doesn't mean jurors change their minds -- it just means those with more will power will prevail.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  3. #3

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    State court - civil not unanimous.
    Federal court - civil must be unanimous.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (04-07-2020)

  5. #4
    Points: 123,366, Level: 85
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,684
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    173984
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,702
    Points
    123,366
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    25,436
    Thanked 26,625x in 16,267 Posts
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    State court - civil not unanimous.
    Federal court - civil must be unanimous.

    Thanks. I didn't know that!
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  6. #5
    Points: 74,611, Level: 66
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 839
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314971
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,616
    Points
    74,611
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,088x in 12,283 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The Cleveland Clinic has appealed arguing that the CA should not inquire into the motivations of the jury's verdict absent evidence of threats, bribery or other improper conduct.


    I think that sums it up fairly nicely. There are established and well founded reasons for declaring a mistrial, especially after a decision by the jury has been reached, none of which are present here.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (04-07-2020)

  8. #6
    Points: 56,719, Level: 58
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,631
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    17597
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Living in Oaxaca, Mexico, born in Memphis and worked in Colorado
    Posts
    11,977
    Points
    56,719
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    916
    Thanked 5,009x in 3,481 Posts
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think if a jury says they can't reach a decision on twice the judge should take them at their word. I can see in the case given the jury announced they were deadlocked three times and were kept late on a Friday night. I guess that's easy to do since Judge's done have to pay jurors overtime.

    What the letter said was that jurors changed their vote, against their better judgement, when it appeared the judge would keep them imprisoned indefinitely until they did. The judge could have said they would work over the weekend but that would have inconvenienced the judge and his court's staff.

    As to your question, I think the judge should be disciplined and the verdict sat aside as not being freely and honestly reached by the jury.

  9. #7
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    I don't know much about the law, but I've always thought requiring a jury to make a "unanimous" decision is counterproductive. I don't know why it can't be a three-quarter or four-fifths decision. Congress, local leaders, and the SCOTUS are all allowed to make decisions even if they can't reach a unanimous consensus.

    Sending a jury back to deliberate more doesn't mean jurors change their minds -- it just means those with more will power will prevail.
    In a criminal case a single vote to convict shows reasonable doubt. At least, it does to me
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  10. #8
    Points: 174,782, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,868
    Overall activity: 21.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,097
    Points
    174,782
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    What Should Trial Court Do About Post-Verdict Juror Letter? -- Interesting issue. On March 11, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of Madora Jones, Administrator of the Estate of ReDon Jones v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al., 2019-0390. The issues in the case deal with confidentiality of jury deliberations and finality of jury verdicts in civil cases.

    After a jury had trouble reaching a verdict, they were instructed to keep deliberating. Thereafter a juror had to leave and one was replaced and deliberations continued. The jury wrote again that they were deadlocked but the court instructed to keep going. Later, at 9:00 on a Friday evening, they again said they were deadlocked but the court told them to keep going and that they'd have to come back Monday if they hadn't agreed. 15 minutes later, they ruled in the Cleveland Clinic's favor.

    Counsel for Jones filed a motion for a mistrial on the following Monday. While the motion was pending, the trial court held a hearing because the court had received a letter from a juror. The juror wrote
    that the jury was frustrated by the deadlock, and some, including the author of the letter, made the decision to switch their votes after being told that they would need to return the following Monday—which the jury took to mean they could be deliberating indefinitely. The juror also wrote that if they had not been kept late on that Friday or knew that Monday would be the last day before being dismissed, votes would not have been changed. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial. Jones appealed.

    The Appeal -- In a unanimous opinion the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed. The Eighth District did not agree that the trial court should have sua sponte declared a mistrial but found that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Jones’ mistrial motion. Because the jury stated on several occasions that it was deadlocked, and then reached a verdict only minutes after being informed that they would need to return to continue deliberating the following week, the trial court should have granted Jones’ motion for a mistrial. The juror’s letter provides even more support for a finding of a
    mistrial because it confirms that the only reason for the verdict was to avoid further deliberation. The trial court should not have relied on Ohio Rule of Evidence 606(B) to exclude the letter from its
    consideration of Jones’ mistrial motion because Rule 606(B) precludes the juror from testifying at a later proceeding about the original verdict, which the juror who wrote the letter did not do.

    The Cleveland Clinic has appealed arguing that the CA should not inquire into the motivations of the jury's verdict absent evidence of threats, bribery or other improper conduct.

    What say you?


    Attachment 28652
    Based on Proposition of Law No. 1 which defines "improper conduct" as arising only if there is competent evidence of "threats, bribes, or improper conduct" admissible under Evidence Rule 606(B) i.e. some sort of external influence on the jury, the Appellate court should have rejected the Appeal. Furthermore, the jury had deliberated only two or so hours on Friday evening and were asking to go home whereupon they were advised by the Court that they could continue or return to resume their deliberation on Monday morning so I'm not sure that one could construe that to mean that the jury was being unduly subjected to hardship and thus changed their verdict on that basis.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  11. #9
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43652
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,657x in 28,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It sounds like the judge was holding the jury in a type of contempt. Do what I want or back to the room you go.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts