DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PABLO IBAR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1956

[April 19, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 94-13062CF10B.

Joseph Nascimento of Ross Amsel Raben Nascimento, PLLC, Miami, for 

appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

In this appeal, the defendant seeks to overturn convictions and 

sentences on three first-degree murder charges, one armed burglary

charge, one armed robbery charge, and one attempted robbery with a 

deadly weapon charge. He raises twelve issues, none of which merit a 

reversal. We affirm and write only to address the juror interview issue. 

Three days after his conviction, a juror called the judge’s chambers to 

express his regret over the verdict but did not indicate any wrongdoing. 

The defendant moved to interview the juror. The trial court denied the 

motion, indicating a juror’s subjective expression of regret was insufficient 

to invade the jury’s deliberations. The trial court further explained its 

authority to interview jurors was limited to alleged violations of the court’s 

instruction forbidding jurors from publicly discussing their jury service. 

Shortly thereafter, the State brought to the trial court’s attention that 

a juror, suspected to be the same juror who contacted the judge’s 

chambers, had posted comments on Reddit expressing his regret and 

seeking advice. This time, the State requested to interview the juror. The 
2

defense objected. Over that objection, the trial court interviewed the juror, 

who admitted posting the comments. The juror also agreed to remove the 

posts and shut down the accounts associated with the posts at the trial 

court’s request. 

At this point in the proceedings, the sentencing phase was pending. 

The State asked the trial court to strike the juror. The defense objected 

and argued the juror’s conduct was not substantially prejudicial, and did 

not require a mistrial, a new trial, or striking the juror. The trial court 

struck the juror for violating the trial court’s instruction not to discuss the 

trial and replaced him with an alternate.

On appeal, the defense argues the trial court erred when it disallowed 

its initial request to interview the juror. The State responds the juror 

simply expressed remorse without indicating any wrongdoing or outside 

influence on the jury’s deliberations. Florida law did not support an 

interview of the juror.

“[J]uror interviews are not permissible unless the moving party has 

made sworn allegations that, if true, would require the court to order a 

new trial because the alleged error was so fundamental and prejudicial as 

to vitiate the entire proceedings.” Johnson v. State, 804 So. 2d 1218, 1225 

(Fla. 2001). Florida Law “absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into 

emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors.” Baptist Hosp. 

of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1991).

[T]he law does not permit a juror to avoid his verdict for any 

reason which essentially inheres in the verdict itself, as that 

he did not assent to the verdict; that he misunderstood the 

instructions of the Court; the statements of a witness or the 

pleadings in the case; that he was unduly influenced by the 

statements or otherwise of his fellow jurors, or mistaken in his 

calculations or judgment, or other matter resting alone in the 

juror’s breast.

Id.

We have limited juror inquiries to situations involving “an overt 

prejudicial actor or external influence, such as a juror receiving prejudicial 

non-record evidence or an actual, express agreement between two or more 

jurors to disregard their juror oaths and instructions.” Gray v. State, 72 

So. 3d 336, 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
3

Here, the defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion 

to interview the juror, but the cases he relies upon do not support his 

position. See, e.g., Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)

(finding verdict was coerced where the trial court told the jury its verdict 

must be unanimous and rendered the same day); Nelson v. State, 438 So. 

2d 1060, 1061–63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (reversing because the court read 

a coercive jury instruction). 

This record reveals the juror simply regretted his verdict. The mere 

remorse of a juror is insufficient to warrant an intrusion into the jury’s 

deliberations. There simply was no evidence to suggest the juror was 

influenced by any external factors nor that he acquiesced to an agreement 

among jurors to disregard their oaths and instructions. There were no

alleged overt prejudicial acts or external influence. Because the 

defendant’s allegations inhered in the verdict, Florida law prohibits a trial 

court from interviewing the juror. Gray, 72 So. 3d at 337; Baptist, 579 So. 

2d at 99. There was no error.1

Affirmed.

CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 The interesting twist in this case is the juror was ultimately excused at the 

State’s request and over the defense’s objection when the juror posted comments 

on Reddit. At that point, the defense wanted the remorseful juror to remain on 

the jury for the penalty phase of this death penalty case.