Opinion ID: 2057254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: In-Court Evidentiary Demonstration

Text: North Western next complains of error occurring in the course of the testimony of Schwinn's expert witness, Arthur DeLong. During DeLong's testimony, counsel for Schwinn suggested that a juror be allowed to hold the front wheel assembly to feel the gyroscopic force produced by the spinning wheel. One of the jurors volunteered and, over objection, was permitted to take part in the suggested demonstration. North Western contends that the involvement of the juror in the experiment with Schwinn's witness was prejudicial, and that the participating juror in effect became a witness for Schwinn, and one who was shielded from cross-examination. We note that the plaintiff, in his separate, conditional appeal against Schwinn, makes the same assignment of error. The demonstration in question took place toward the end of the trial, during Schwinn's presentation of its case in chief. What follows is a description of the event, as recorded in the trial transcript: A. [MR. DeLONG] Can I spin test? Q. [MR. MURTAUGH, SCHWINN'S COUNSEL] What is the spin test? A. You can try this. You can see it and I can demonstrate it, but in a bicycle or any wheel, when it is out of spinning. That's what helps hold the bicycle. If you're  it's like a gyroscope. If I should deflect that wheel to the left, see what happens? I hold it. There, see. I didn't pull it over like that. The gyroscopic pulled it over. All I'm doing is  if you'd like to try it. MR. MURTAUGH: Your Honor, if any member of the jury would like to try it. It's difficult to see. We can simply  THE COURT: Is there any objection? MR. CORBOY: I don't think the jurors  we're put on the spot now. If we object, we're bad guys. THE COURT: I think I have to ask if there's an objection. MR. CORBOY: I have no objection. MR. BRANT: Well, I will bite the bullet. I object. This is not even touching the ground. I don't know how this is going to show anything, spinning a wheel freely in the air. THE COURT: Mr. Murtaugh, is it your intention by this demonstration to demonstrate the gyroscopic action solely? Is that what you're doing? MR. MURTAUGH: That's all, yes, your Honor. THE COURT: I'll allow it. MR. MURTAUGH: Thank you. THE COURT: There's been testimony relative to gyroscopic action and/or a gyroscopic effect. This demonstration apparently is to illustrate that term, that concept only. I will allow it. MR. MURTAUGH: Thank you, your Honor. Any volunteers? JUROR: I'll try. THE WITNESS: Hold it down here as close to there as possible. You see, and I'll spin the wheels at the angle. Then after the wheel is spinning just turn your hand like that, you see, which would be the effect of the wheel suddenly being thrust to the left. BY MR. MURTAUGH: Q. What will be the effect of when he does it? A. It should throw it over to this direction to the right. Q. Sudden movement of his hand to the left? JUROR: It does throw it off. THE WITNESS: No. You have to do it quickly, you see. MR. MURTAUGH: Okay. JUROR: There is a force. THE WITNESS: See. BY MR. MURTAUGH: Q. Now, what effect does that gyroscopic action have on the operation of the bicycle? Obviously, Mr. Brant pointed out the bicycle that Mr Schaffner was riding at the time of the accident was on a certain surface. What effect does it have on the bicycle itself with the wheel on the ground? A. With the wheel on the ground, since the force is a rotational force, it tends to throw the bicycle over to the right. Present in the record in this case is an appendix to the portion of the transcript quoted above. Apparently prepared by one of the trial attorneys, the document provides a further description of the demonstration. The appendix states: After the Court ruled, a male juror, who was one of the original 12 jurors, and not an alternate, left the jury box and was handed Schwinn Exhibit No. 56 by Mr. DeLong. Exhibit 56 consisted of the front wheel assembly of a bicycle and included a front wheel, fork and handle bars. Standing between Mr. DeLong and Mr. Murtaugh, the juror held the front wheel assembly by the fork stem off the floor and approximately perpendicular to the floor. Then, Mr. DeLong spun the wheel and the juror twisted the fork stem to the left while the wheel was spinning, and the spinning wheel tilted in a counter-clockwise direction from the original perpendicular position. As shown by the Report of Proceedings there were statements made during this demonstration by Mr. DeLong, Mr. Murtaugh and the juror as to the progress of the demonstration. After of [ sic ] the demonstration, which took approximately two minutes, the juror returned to the jury box. In the present appeal North Western contends that the involvement of the juror in the demonstration was error. North Western maintains that the participating juror gained knowledge that was unavailable to the other jurors and became, in effect, a witness for Schwinn, placed beyond the reach of cross-examination by opposing counsel. North Western asserts that the demonstration was calculated to ingratiate Schwinn's expert and attorney with the jury and that it unfairly promoted Schwinn's theory of the case. As the transcript indicates, plaintiff's counsel did not object to the suggested procedure. But, contrary to the appellate court's statement in its opinion, counsel for North Western did make a contemporaneous objection, saying, Well, I will bite the bullet. I object. This is not even touching the ground. I don't know how this is going to show anything, spinning a wheel freely in the air. Although it is not clear from the record whether North Western was making only a specific objection to the demonstration, based on the dissimilarity between the in-court test and Daniel's bicycle, or whether the railroad was making both specific and general objections, the trial judge should have barred the demonstration on his own motion. Involving jurors in the demonstration or presentation of evidence is, we believe, an unsound practice. There are several potential dangers in enlisting jurors in such undertakings. Personal exchanges and other forms of intercourse between jurors and either counsel or witnesses may tend to cast the participants in a favorable or unfavorable light in the eyes of the jury. (See Campbell v. Fox (1986), 113 Ill.2d 354, 357-59 (new trial ordered where defendant physician in medical malpractice action had come to assistance of stricken juror during opening statements); People v. Davis (1970), 46 Ill.2d 554, 560 (disapproving prosecutor's tactic of addressing jurors individually by name in closing argument).) Similarly, courts have condemned efforts to involve jurors in the demonstration of physical impairments. (See Vance v. Monroe Drug Co. (1909), 149 Ill. App. 499 (error for jurors to have manipulated plaintiff's injured hand to determine its mobility); Stewart v. Weiner (1922), 108 Neb. 49, 187 N.W. 121 (error for jurors to have shaken weakened hand of personal injury plaintiff; participating juror beyond reach of cross-examination); Gray v. L-M Chevrolet Co. (Texas Civ. App. 1963), 368 S.W.2d 861 (affirming trial judge's order sustaining objection to personal injury plaintiff's counsel's invitation to juror to feel sunken place on plaintiff's back; juror would have gained information unavailable to fellow jurors and could have drawn own unskilled conclusion from evidence).) The use of jurors as assistants or subjects in evidentiary demonstrations of evidence at trial may have the effect of converting the participant into a witness for the party conducting the test. The juror may acquire knowledge that is not directly available to the other jurors, and opposing counsel is unable to cross-examine him on his experience. These concerns militate against the involvement of jurors in evidentiary demonstrations. Despite the hazards that may arise from attempts to involve jurors in the presentation of evidence, we do not believe that the error that occurred here was prejudicial. Several circumstances weigh in favor of that conclusion. First, the experiment used by Schwinn's expert was a simple one, and it cannot be said that the juror who took part in the test acquired arcane knowledge that was outside everyday experience. Also, we note that the test illustrated only a portion of the basis for the expert's opinion, and successful completion of the demonstration was therefore less likely to convert the participating juror into an advocate for Schwinn's theory. Moreover, as the appendix indicates, the demonstration was brief, lasting only about two minutes. Finally, the device used in the demonstration was, like the other exhibits admitted at trial, sent to the jury room at the close of evidence in this case, without objection, and it was therefore available to the jury during its deliberations. Those jurors who were so disposed were thus free to duplicate for themselves in the jury room the same brief test that had been conducted in the courtroom; there is no argument raised here that such experimentation by the jurors would have been inappropriate. It is clear, then, that the juror who took part in the demonstration did not gain information that remained unavailable to the other jurors. Although we believe that the better course would have been for the trial judge to prohibit Schwinn's counsel from attempting to involve the jury in the company's presentation of its evidence, we conclude that any error occurring in the demonstration was harmless.