Opinion ID: 1790359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conversations between a juror and the bailiff

Text: Following the first witness for the Commonwealth, the judge reported to counsel that one of the jurors had asked the bailiff why are we having this trial? The Grand Jury indicted him. The trial judge then called the jurors to the bench and explained to the jurors that the Grand Jury is a secret process where the burden of proof is less, that the indictment is not to be considered as evidence, and that the Grand Jury process is just an initiating step to start the trial process. The juror then commented that he just wanted that position clarified, and then was allowed to return to the panel. The trial judge denied Appellant's Motion for Mistrial and gave an admonition to the entire jury, whereupon he explained that an indictment is not to be considered as evidence and that it is just a vehicle to start the trial process. The judge further explained that a different standard of proof is used between the Grand Jury and the trial and that certain information had to be heard by the Grand Jury, but the case had not been tried before the Grand Jury. Kentucky Law provides that no officer, party, or witness to an action pending, or his attorney, or attorneys shall, without leave of court, converse with the jury or any member thereof upon any subject after they have been sworn. KRS § 29A.310(2). However, not every incident of juror misconduct requires a new trial. The test is whether the misconduct has prejudiced the Defendant to the extent that he has not received a fair trial. United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394 (9th Cir.1974). The trial judge has discretion in determining the prejudicial effect of a juror's misconduct, particularly if there is an opportunity to give a curative admonition. Polk v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 335 (Ky.App.1978). A Defendant's Motion for Mistrial should only be granted where there is a manifest necessity for such an action or an urgent or real necessity. Skaggs v. Commonwealth, supra . It is incumbent upon the party claiming bias or impartiality to prove the point. Polk at 337. Weighing the information before the Court, plus the assumption that an admonition would be followed by the jury, the trial court properly concluded that the admonition was sufficient and the case should go forward. This one question by one juror did not deprive the Appellant of a fair trial, and in light of all the competing elements that were present, at that point and time the Appellant failed to show the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the Motion for Mistrial. There was simply no error here. Having found error under issues I(A) and (B) and IV, we are convinced the cumulative effect of the prejudice from all three mandates a new trial. Funk v. Commonwealth, 842 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Ky.1993). Therefore, the Judgment of Conviction and the sentence imposed therefore are reversed and this case is remanded to the Boone Circuit Court for a new trial in accordance with this Opinion. LAMBERT, C.J., joins this opinion. COOPER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part by separate opinion with JOHNSTONE, J., joining that opinion. ROACH, J., dissents by separate opinion with GRAVES and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., joining that opinion. WINTERSHEIMER, J., dissents by separate opinion.