Proper Exclusion of Evidence of Juror Misconduct

There was no abuse of discretion when the trial court refused to look into alleged misbehavior of a juror because the defendant found the information by violating local rules of post-trial contact.

 

United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2015).

    The rule here is similar to many that prohibit contact with jurors. Middle District of Florida Rule 5.01(d) states that neither an attorney, nor a party may directly or indirectly try to interview a juror after trial unless that person first obtains the court's permission to do so.

    Four months after his conviction, one of the co-defendants violated the no-contact rule by telephoning a juror and having that juror e-mail his attorney about the jury deliberations. That e-mail described the use of the internet to "look[] up things."

   All of the co-defendants cited this as juror misconduct in a motion for a new trial, however, the sanction for violating the no-contact rule is exclusion. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court was correct in denying motion for a new trial, indicating that the misconduct involved was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The 11th Cir. said "the district court properly struck evidence that was obtained in violation of the local rule restricting communications between a party and juror."