Case Name: Walter SCHMITZ, et al., Petitioners, v. S.A.B.T.C. TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-12-22
Citations: 537 So. 2d 130
Docket Number: No. 88-1521
Parties: Walter SCHMITZ, et al., Petitioners, v. S.A.B.T.C. TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Respondent.
Judges: COWART, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 537
Pages: 130–132

Head Matter:
Walter SCHMITZ, et al., Petitioners, v. S.A.B.T.C. TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Respondent.
No. 88-1521.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 22, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1989.
Frederick R. Brock of Gartner, Phillips, Brock & Simon, Jacksonville, for petitioners.
B. Thomas Whitefield of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Taylor, Jacksonville, for respondent.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioners seek this court's writ of cer-tiorari to quash the order below permitting the post-trial interview of a juror. We issue the writ and quash the order.
A person who knows one of the jurors told an attorney involved in the lawsuit that the juror told him that the said juror felt pressured into reaching a quick decision in the case. He said the juror told him that a court bailiff said the judge was going on vacation so the jury should reach a verdict by the next day.
We cannot agree that the allegations of misconduct are sufficient to warrant the extraordinary and intrusive procedure of questioning of a juror. Orange County v. Fuller, 502 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). There is no substantial allegation that any juror was led to a verdict because of some misconduct or was improperly influenced in reaching a verdict. The jury took three and one-half hours to consider its verdict and rendered it long before the judge was supposedly going out of town. A jury poll was conducted and no hint of any irregularity came out until over three weeks after the trial.
Post-trial juror interviews should be rarely granted and the sanctity of the jury process as well as the privacy rights of the jurors themselves should be closely guarded and protected. See Sentinel Star Co. v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 367, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), pet. for rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1981); National Indemnity Co. v. Andrews, 354 So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1978); Velsor v. Allstate Insurance Co., 329 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 336 So.2d 1179 (Fla.1976).
The order permitting a jury interview is quashed.
WRIT ISSUED, ORDER QUASHED.
COWART, J., concurs.
DANIEL, J., dissents with opinion.