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