Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, Taber Partners I, filed a motion for a new trial, citing jury bias due to alleged intimidating conduct by family members of the defendant’s president and improper ex parte communication involving a juror excused prior to deliberations. The plaintiff claimed that Angela Schlump and Joan Schlump Peters' actions influenced the jury, and that Mr. Solivan-Rolán engaged in prohibited communications with jurors, potentially affecting the verdict. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing it was speculative and untimely. The Court found the allegations of jury intimidation to be frivolous and not warranting further investigation but recognized the seriousness of the ex parte communication claim, opting to conduct a limited inquiry into this matter. The Court highlighted the importance of timely raising motions for mistrial and outlined the procedure for questioning jurors about external influences under extraordinary circumstances. As a result, the Court scheduled interviews to assess the potential impact of the alleged communication on the jury's decision-making process, with the findings to determine if additional juror conduct inquiries are necessary.
Legal Issues Addressed
Ex Parte Communication and Juror Influencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court found the allegations of ex parte communication involving an excused juror serious enough to warrant further investigation, as it could potentially influence the jury's verdict.
Reasoning: However, the plaintiff's second allegation involved a potentially serious issue: a previously impaneled juror may have communicated with the jury before deliberations. The court recognized the importance of ensuring that jury decisions are based solely on evidence presented in court, and thus decided to investigate this claim to determine whether the alleged communication was prejudicial.
Juror Interviews Post-Verdictsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court outlined the procedure for limited juror interviews under extraordinary circumstances, emphasizing adherence to legal rules and prohibiting post-verdict questioning about deliberations.
Reasoning: Jurors cannot be questioned post-verdict about their decisions, as outlined in Rule 322 and supported by the case law, which prohibits post-trial interviews by attorneys unless under court supervision in extraordinary circumstances.
Motion for New Trial Based on Jury Misconductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court considered the plaintiff's motion for a new trial due to alleged jury misconduct but found the claims regarding jury intimidation by family members to be frivolous and untimely.
Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that non-frivolous allegations of jury bias necessitate investigation but ultimately deemed Taber's first allegation regarding the Schlumps as frivolous and late, thus not warranting further investigation.
Timeliness of Motions for Mistrialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court emphasized the necessity of promptly raising a motion for mistrial upon discovering potential juror bias, rather than delaying until after an unfavorable verdict.
Reasoning: A motion for mistrial should have been made promptly by the plaintiff if they believed juror bias had occurred, rather than waiting until after a lengthy trial and an adverse verdict.