Opinion ID: 2581323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Jurors' Statements

Text: {10} Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was tainted by juror misconduct. Defense counsel interviewed several jurors and was told that Juror 7 presented probability calculations to the other members of the jury regarding the chances of a child and a screwdriver falling in such a manner as to result in impalement. Defendant identified several jurors who he believed had information regarding Juror 7. {11} The trial court decided to conduct in camera interviews on the record with members of the jury to determine if an evidentiary hearing was necessary because the trial court was concerned with the jurors' privacy after videotape of the jury had appeared on television during the trial. The court gave Defendant the opportunity to name the jurors whom the court should question and gave both Defendant and the State the opportunity to posit any additional question to be asked. Defendant did not request that the trial court interview all members of the jury. The Court interviewed Jurors 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. {12} Juror 9 said that Juror 7 wrote some calculations on a board in the jury room, and said, But, see, I kind of viewed that more as here is a guy that knows numbers, knows mathematics, who knows probabilities. I viewed it as his life experience. You know, much in the same way that relating back to the '94 head injury ... where the one juror ... brought in his life experience. He didn't bring in something, but in effect he did bring in something. He brought in the fact that he had a kid fall out of a tree and had a bad head injury.... [W]e had nurses in there, and the nurses brought in their life experience.... {13} Juror 4 noted that Juror 7 didn't say he did any experiments at home and that [h]e didn't bring papers into the jury room, but used the easel in the room. Juror 4 recounted that Juror 7 said, `Let's take Dr. Watts' figures.' And you might fly this by that  being an engineer and probably half-way [physicist], he said using his figures, it can't come out the way he said it did. Juror 10 stated that Juror 7 had some figures that he had thought about and it was explaining his point of view on the testimony of Dr. Watts. Juror 6 stated that I feel that the particular juror that  the engineer juror, to me that was just his way of venting his feelings and thoughts and emotions during the deliberation. {14} Juror 7 told the trial court that he did not do any calculations or experiments at home. He contended that he did not dispute or discredit Dr. Watts' testimony but believed that Dr. Watts' testimony consisted of fine calculations and [he] would agree with the calculations. Juror 7 thought that the testimony did not [answer] the right question because he did not accept the logical tie between the testimony and Defendant's story. Juror 7 completed a probability calculation to verify [his] own gut feeling, beginning with Dr. Watts' calculations which were presented during the trial. He stated that he used his professional judgment and a fairly simple five-step probability calculation with five events from Defendant's description of the event: first, whether the screwdriver land[ed] in the correct orientation or solid angle perpendicular to the victim's falling body; second, whether the screwdriver landed with the blade facing up; third, whether the screwdriver separated itself, as it fell, from other items that had been knocked off the hamper; fourth, where it landed on the floor; and fifth, whether its orientation caused the wound path. He recounted, I simply multiplied the numbers, one over 10 times one over two times 1 over 100 three times, and the number you get is basically five times ten to minus 8 or in what most of us think about, one in a 20 million chance. {15} The trial court stated, I conducted several interviews with the jurors in this case. My concern and purpose for doing that was first of all to find out if there was any juror misconduct requiring possibly a full evidentiary hearing as to the merits of the Defendant's motion as to whether that misconduct may have influenced the jury to the extent the Defendant might be entitled to a new trial in this case. Also, another reason for my interviews with the jurors were to find in my own mind as to whether anything occurred in the jury room that was such that would require that in the interest of justice that I would have to remedy or should remedy what could be characterized as a manifest miscarriage of justice. {16} The trial court expressed after the most serious contemplation, I find that there has not been sufficient evidence before this Court to require either a further inquiry into the jury's conduct, nor is there such that would require me in my role as a judge to set aside that verdict. I feel I believe in the jury system. I believe that the jury in this case took the evidence as they saw it in court, made a decision based on their [consciences] and on the evidence presented in court, although some people may feel that they would have come to a different resolution. That is not what our system is about, and for me to place myself in the stead of the jury to overturn that would be, I feel, [betrayal] of everything I believe about our system. The trial court then denied Defendant's motion. The trial court found that Defendant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that extraneous information had reached the jury, stating that there was insufficient evidence to require further inquiry into the jury's conduct or to set aside the verdict. A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the issue of juror misconduct, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. Mann, 2000-NMCA-088, ¶ 109, 129 N.M. 600, 11 P.3d 564.