Opinion ID: 1942962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Request for Juror Interviews

Text: During the penalty phase, Coday moved to interview the jurors regarding their exposure to media reports. The trial court denied Coday's motion, and Coday asserts that this was error because there were a number of media reports about the case after the guilt phase and a number of jurors were excused due to exposure to media reports. We have said that juror interviews are not permissible unless the moving party has made sworn allegations that, if true, would require the court to order a new trial because the alleged error was so fundamental and prejudicial as to vitiate the entire proceedings. Johnson v. State, 804 So.2d 1218, 1225 (Fla.2001). This standard was formulated `in light of the strong public policy against allowing litigants either to harass jurors or to upset a verdict by attempting to ascertain some improper motive underlying it.' Id. (quoting Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla.1991)). On numerous occasions throughout the penalty phase, the trial court inquired of the jurors, both individually and as a group, whether they had been exposed to outside sources, particularly the media. As a result of this repeated inquiry, the trial court excused three jurors due to their exposure to outside sources. The remainder of the jurors indicated that they had not been exposed to outside influences, and Coday did not provide any information to contradict their assertions. Hence, we find that the trial court properly denied Coday's motion to interview the jury.