Opinion ID: 1529521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the judge's ex parte contact with the jurors

Text: On Wednesday, April 29, 1992, the third day of the trial in this case, a state court jury in Simi Valley, California, acquitted three Los Angeles police officers of all charges in the beating of Rodney King; a fourth officer was found not guilty of two charges, but the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict as to the third count against him. Widespread civil disorders erupted in response to the verdict. On Thursday, April 30, 1992, The Washington Post's banner headline proclaimed: NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO STEM L.A. VIOLENCE AFTER OFFICERS' ACQUITTAL ON ALL BUT ONE COUNT. It was on the day that this headline appeared that Etheredge's case went to the jury. On the evening of April 30, counsel for the District telephoned the judge's law clerk and opposing counsel and informed them that he proposed to move for a mistrial on the following day. On Friday, May 1, [15] counsel made this motion in open court. He expressed concern that the jury would be consciously or unconsciously affected by the Simi Valley verdict and its aftermath, and might feel that for some reason or another it would be required to return a verdict against the defendant... to send a message, if you will, or to serve some greater purpose. The judge denied the motion, observing that counsel for the District could have requested, but did not request, a voir dire examination of the jurors to determine whether the verdict, rioting, and resulting publicity would interfere with the ability of any of them to return an impartial verdict. The judge added that he was persuaded that the jurors are going about their duty in examining this case on its merits and that the verdict they return will reflect their determination of [the] evidence in the case and the law as the court instructed them. The jury continued its deliberations without incident for the remainder of the day. The judge's ex parte contact with the foreman occurred on Monday, May 4, 1992. As described in the judge's written opinion, 120 Daily Wash.L.Rptr. at 2230, [o]n Monday, May 4, 1992, the court spoke to the foreman of the jury, in the jury room, prior to the arrival of all jurors. The foreman was told that, in light of the fact that the Mayor of the city had gone on record as approving liberal leave for District Government workers to participate in a peaceful protest demonstration to be held in the city that day, the court would like him to solicit the views of each juror to determine whether they wished to participate in the demonstration, and to report his findings to the court. Within thirty minutes the court received a [note] from the foreman stating that the jury wished to be excused for the day. Shortly after this unrecorded conversation between the judge and the foreman, the jury sent the judge a note stating that we will [sic] like to leave for today. The judge excused the jury until the following morning. Explaining that the Mayor had encouraged government employees ... who wanted to protest the verdict in the Rodney King case, to take off today, and encouraged supervisors of these employees to grant liberal leave, the judge stated that as a judge on the Superior Court, [I] can do no less than approve your request, particularly since you are together on this. He concluded by telling the jurors Don't go home. Protest. And go home after you protest. After the jury was excused, the District renewed its motion for a mistrial. The renewed motion was based on the extensive press coverage of the disturbances. Counsel for the District did not, however, mention in his argument the judge's encouragement of the jurors, in open court, to participate in a protest against the Simi Valley verdict. The jurors resumed their deliberations on the morning of Tuesday, May 5, 1992. Two hours later, they returned a verdict totalling more than one and a half million dollars in Etheredge's favor.
There are, perhaps, some non-substantive matters which are so removed from the merits of a case that ex parte communication between judge and jury may be intrinsically harmless. See, e.g., Guzzi v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 36 N.J.Super. 255, 115 A.2d 629, 634 (1955) ([e]xcluded from any impropriety is the message of the hungry jury, transported by the attending officer to the judge, that they desired some abdominal timber ...). [16] The subject which the trial judge chose to raise with several jurors in the jury room, [17] however, was not of that character. The Simi Valley verdict carried an obvious emotional wallop. The acquittals and the riots that followed generated intense feelings in many people. The events in California had prompted the District to move for a mistrial after several days of trial. It was therefore important for all concerned, and especially for the judge, to deal with so inflammatory a subject with restraint, lest it derail the ongoing trial. The judge apparently believed, in light of the Mayor's decision to encourage District employees to participate in the protests against the California jury's verdict, that he had an obligation to provide a similar opportunity to the Etheredge jurors. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the situations of the employees and the jurors were comparable, and that the judicial branch should have considered following the lead of the executive branch and encouraging even jurors to protest, a legitimate alternative manner of proceeding was available to the judge. Specifically, he could have raised the issue with counsel in advance, outside the presence of the jury. Armed with the views of the parties as to how to proceed, he could then have taken whatever action he deemed appropriate, preferably with the consent of all concerned. If no such consent was forthcoming, any objecting party would have had the opportunity to state its views. Any communication with the jury could then have been effected in open court, in the presence of counsel and the parties. Unfortunately, however, the judge spoke to the foreman and others ex parte, without prior notice to the attorneys, and without any record being made of the discussion in the jury room. This was reversible error. In light of his high office and potential influence upon the jurors, the judge was required to exercise an especially high degree of circumspection in his communications with the jury. Daniels v. Bloomquist, 258 Iowa 301, 138 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa 1965). The Supreme Court has recognized that [a]ny ex parte meeting or communication between the judge and the foreman of a deliberating jury is pregnant with possibilities for error. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 460, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 2885, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978). The Court went on to explain that [u]nexpected questions or comments can generate unintended and misleading impressions of the judge's subjective personal views which have no place in his instruction to the juryall the more so when counsel are not present to challenge the statements. Second, any occasion which leads to communication with the whole jury panel through one juror inevitably risks innocent misstatements of the law and misinterpretations despite the undisputed good faith of the participants. Id. at 460-61, 98 S.Ct. at 2885-86; accord, Lukstas v. Saint Francis Hosp. & Medical Center, 23 Conn.App. 680, 583 A.2d 941, 943-44 (1990). It is indefensible for the judge to enter the jury room while jurors are there. Zaitzeff v. Raschke, 387 Mich. 577, 198 N.W.2d 309, 310 (1972), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. France, 436 Mich. 138, 461 N.W.2d 621, 622-23 (1990). This is so because [t]he right of the parties to be present in person and by counsel at all stages of the trial, except the deliberations of the jury, is basic to due process. Leonard's of Plainfield, Inc. v. Dybas, 130 N.J.L. 135, 31 A.2d 496, 497 (1943). Accordingly, privy communications in the absence of counsel, particularly when oral, between a trial judge in chambers and a jury engaged in deliberations in the jury room concerning any matter implicated ever so remotely in the consideration and decision of the case are forbidden by the essentials of our trial procedure as imperiling, perhaps, the principles of due process. Guzzi, supra, 115 A.2d at 634 (emphasis added). These proscriptions against improper contacts apply equally to criminal and civil cases. Petrycki v. Youngstown & N.R.R. Co., 531 F.2d 1363, 1366 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 860, 97 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed.2d 138 (1976). Although an improper ex parte communication between judge and jury is subject to harmless error analysis, id. at 1367, it raises at least a strong inference of reversible error. Id.; accord, Standard Alliance Indus., Inc. v. Black Clawson Co., 587 F.2d 813, 828 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 441 U.S. 923, 99 S.Ct. 2032, 60 L.Ed.2d 396 (1979). The court stated in Petrycki, supra, that [b]ecause we cannot say with certainty that no harm was done in this case by the [ex parte contact] between the court and the jury, with counsel absent, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. 531 F.2d at 1368 (emphasis added). The underscored phrase may be an overstatement, for absolute certainty is rare. We conclude, however, that where a potentially prejudicial ex parte communication has occurred, the party seeking affirmance must demonstrate that the error was harmless. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 544 A.2d 270, 273 (D.C.1988); State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 738 P.2d 812, 828 (1987). No such showing has been or can be made here. Even if the ex parte proceedings in the jury room had been transcribed, which they were not, there was no chance for [the District] to object to what Judge [Rankin] said, [nor can it be determined] whether any special verbal emphasis or facial expressions were given to certain terms which could have improperly influenced the jurors. Estrada, supra, 738 P.2d at 827-28. In the present case, in which the subject under discussion was unusually volatile, the possibility was enhanced that an unintended message affecting the merits was communicated by the judge to the jury. Not knowing exactly what was said in the jury room, or how it was said, or how the foreman communicated the judge's inquiry to the other jurors, we cannot be confident that the judge's ex parte communication did not influence the jury's decision either as to liability or as to the amount of damages. This case is quite unlike Lewis v. United States, 567 A.2d 1326 (D.C.1989), in which we affirmed a conviction in spite of an ex parte contact between the judge and a juror. Both parties in Lewis consented to the contact, and its substance was repeated in open court. Id. at 1328-29. See also Johnson, supra, 544 A.2d at 273 (decision of court to excuse juror whose mother had died was harmless error, in spite of the court's failure to notify counsel in advance; the lack of any prejudice was obvious, for the juror did not participate in the decision regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence). The subjects addressed by the judge in Lewis and Johnson were essentially innocuous; the Simi Valley verdict and its aftermath were not. [18] Etheredge notes in his reply brief that the District failed to object when the judge, in open court, authorized the jurors to participate in the protest of the California verdict. He contends that the District is therefore precluded from contending on appeal that the judge erred in doing so. See D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37, 48 (D.C.1988). So far as appears from the record, however, counsel for the District had no means of knowing that the jury note requesting a day off from deliberations was solicited by the judge for the purpose of allowing the jurors to demonstrate. [19] The lack of an objection to what appeared to be a proposal by the jury does not suggest that counsel would have remained silent if he had known that the idea that the jury participate in the protest originated with the judge. After the contact in the jury room was revealed in The Washington Post, the District cited the ex parte communication as one of its grounds for conditionally seeking a new trial.