Opinion ID: 1881709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Did the trial court err in refusing to grant Alpha's Motion for Leave to Question the Jurors?

Text: ¶ 80. Alpha contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion for leave to question jurors. Upon inquiry by Alpha, the trial court generally allowed law-yers to contact jurors to inquire about their performance at trial, but the lawyers could not question the jurors regarding the basis for the verdict. Alpha contacted a few jurors, and one juror, on his own initiative, indicated that he thought some extraneous matters angered other jurors and influenced the verdict. Specifically, the juror stated that some jurors believed that there was a videotape of the blackjack table not provided by the casino and some believed that Alpha was hiding the tape. Alpha seeks a remand to instruct the trial court to inquire whether juror misconduct occurred in the event that this case in not reversed and rendered or if a new trial is not granted by this Court. ¶ 81. In Gladney v. Clarksdale Beverage Co., 625 So.2d 407 (Miss.1993), this Court adopted its own procedure to address juror inquiry under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence 606(b) which states the following: b) Inquiry Into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes. (emphasis added). ¶ 82. In Gladney, this Court; wanted to preclude a party from fishing for a way to change an undesirable conclusion in a jury verdict. Gladney, 625 So.2d at 418. In order to preclude the fishing there must be a balance between the right to inquire into a jury verdict and the rights of jurors to be free of harassment and secure in their jury verdict. Id. This Court sets forth the M.R.E. 606(b) analysis that if an allegation of juror misconduct arises; then, there is consideration as to whether an investigation is warranted. Id. ¶ 83. To determine if a duty to investigate arises, the proponent of the misconduct must make an adequate showing to overcome the presumption of jury impartiality. Id. At the very minimum, it must be shown that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that good cause exists to believe that there was in fact an improper outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information. Id. at 419. While a minimum standard of good cause is acceptable, it is preferable to clearly substantiate that a specific, non-speculative impropriety occurred. Id. If a post-trial hearing is warranted, the trial court shall determine the sufficiency of the evidence under the standards. Id. In the absence of a threshold showing of external influences, an inquiry into the juror verdict is not required. On the other hand, when a threshold showing is made, a post-trial hearing should be conducted by the court. Id. ¶ 84. In the case sub judice, the trial court denied Alpha's Motion for Leave to Question Jurors. The trial judge balanced the right to inquiry versus the right of jurors to be free of harassment and secure in their verdict. She considered counsels rendition of what type of testimony was given during trial on the issue of a videotape for the blackjack table and case law provided to the court. From all the information, the trial court specifically determined that there was insufficient evidence and no showing of good cause to warrant further review of the issue. ¶ 85. The testimony from both Akins and Sutton indicated that the surveillance office generally tapes all activity at the casino, including blackjack tables. Neither men knew of a specific tape of the blackjack table. This Court finds that the trial court correctly determined that there was no threshold showing of external influence as to outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information, and, therefore, no inquiry into the juror verdict is required.