Opinion ID: 2084543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury out)

Text: Once it dismissed the jury, the court entertained defendants' lengthy objections to the summation of plaintiff's counsel, including an objection to counsel's comments regarding the testimony of Dr. DeLaurentis. One defense counsel remarked, Judge, I have never in all the years I've been doing this ... seen what I deem to be totally inappropriate comments made in closing as I have this morning. The court seemed to agree, stating to plaintiff's counsel: Well, actually, ... you said a lot of things during your closing which were not my recollection of how the facts came out during the course of the trial[.] Nonetheless, the court denied defendants' motion for a mistrial, stating [w]e'll get through this, we'll see what the jury has to say and then we'll have our posttrial motions and whatever happens after that, happens. The trial court then called for the jury. Because the jury apparently had been dismissed on numerous other occasions, the court assured jurors on their return, I promise you that's the last of the delays because this is the end of it. There will be no more delays. Referring to that last dismissal of the jury (the dismissal that followed the summation of plaintiff's counsel), the judge observed in his statement to the Appellate Division: I recall [that there] was a problem with [the] comments [of plaintiff's counsel] during his summation. I remember that, upon an objection being interposed, I excused the jury for a discussion out of their hearing. I have never done that before or since in almost 18 years on the trial bench. We should heed those strong words of the trial court. Although I might agree with the majority's ultimate conclusion that plaintiff's counsel did not act improperly, we [should] not substitute our judgment for the judgment of those closest to the trial when it appears that they have acted reasonably under the circumstances. State v. Zhu, 165 N.J. 544, 555, 761 A. 2d 523 (2000). A trial court's rulings concerning confusion on the part of jurors or the conduct of trial counsel fall squarely within the category of those decisions warranting a high level of deference. In sum, Juror Number Five conceded that she misunderstood the verdict sheet and did not vote on two critical questions. That irregularity was contrary to this Court's teaching that each juror must deliberate fully and fairly on each question or special verdict[.] Williams v. James, 113 N.J. 619, 632, 552 A. 2d 153 (1989). The trial court appeared deeply troubled by the jury's verdict and identified other problems concerning the first trial. The second verdict rendered by a different jury was apparently free of any juror confusion or similar error. In view of those problems concerning the first trial and verdict, I would not disturb the second verdict. Thus, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE LaVECCHIA joins in this opinion. For reversal and reinstatement Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices STEIN, COLEMAN and ZAZZALI4.