Court Opinion

ID: 9786155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:48:50.946941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:17.648052
License: Public Domain

ARMIJO, Judge. {66} We concur in that portion of Judge Apodaca’s opinion regarding the double jeopardy and jury instruction issues. However, our opinion below represents the opinion of the Court regarding Defendant’s claim of juror misconduct. This issue is one of first impression in New Mexico, the question being whether a juror’s reliance upon his disclosed technical background, as well as his communication of this reliance to his fellow jurors, constitutes misconduct. On this issue, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial. STANDARD OF REVIEW  {67} We begin by noting the applicable standard of review. It is well established that we would reverse the trial court’s ruling on allegations of juror misconduct only upon an abuse of discretion. See Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 148, 899 P.2d 576, 592 (1995); State v. Chavez, 98 N.M. 682, 684, 652 P.2d 232, 234 (1982) (“The trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for new trial, and such an order will not be reversed absent clear and manifest abuse of that discretion.”). This standard applies both to the district court’s ultimate ruling and to our review of the means by which it inquired into Defendant’s allegations. See State v. Sacoman, 107 N.M. 588, 592, 762 P.2d 250, 254 (1988); see also Hard v. Burlington N.R.R., 870 F.2d 1454, 1461-62 (9th Cir.1989). Reliance upon this standard reflects not only the important policies implicated by motions for new trial, see State v. Gonzales, 105 N.M. 238, 241, 731 P.2d 381, 384 (Ct.App.1986) (noting interest in enforcing lawful verdicts), but also the trial court’s unique position in passing upon such questions in the first instance, see Allyn v. Boe, 87 Wash.App. 722, 943 P.2d 364, 369 (1997) (noting in review of claimed juror misconduct that trial court “saw both the witnesses and the trial proceedings, and had in mind the evidence”). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {68} The trial, which included the testimony of thirty-nine witnesses, lasted for more than a month. Upon its deliberation, the jury convicted Defendant, among other counts, of unlawfully killing his son. Some time after the verdict, Defendant’s representatives interviewed several of the jurors, including Juror No. 7, and moved for a new trial claiming that Juror No. 7 had improperly shared “calculations, and expert opinions” during deliberations. Specifically, Defendant alleged: 6. The juror took it upon himself to serve the function of prosecution expert witness during deliberations by doing calculations, explaining physics and engineering to the remainder of the jurors and conducting experiments which discredited the opinions given by Dr. Watts. 7. That same juror actually presented calculations which he had independently done in order to discredit the opinions of Dr. Watts. He had them written on a sheet of paper which he copied on to the easel. We restrict our remaining discussion of the facts to the issue of alleged juror misconduct involving Juror No. 7. Juror No. 7 ■ {69} Defense counsel knew of Juror No. 7’s professional status and technical background prior to selecting him to serve on the jury. Indeed, prior to voir dire, an extensive process in which the parties and court invested approximately a full week, counsel had prospective jurors complete a detailed questionnaire which inquired, among other matters, as to each potential juror’s background, employment, and education. Juror No. 7, in his response to the questionnaire, informed counsel of his technical background and his employment as an engineer with the Sandia National Laboratories. Then, upon individual voir dire — during which counsel and the court spoke to Juror No. 7 individually and on the record — he again disclosed that he worked at Sandia National Laboratories and that “[his] training is as an engineer.” In response to further questioning from the court, he stated that despite his background, he would be able to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence at trial. Defendant made no objection to Juror No. 7 serving on his jury. Doctor Watts’ Testimony {70} At trial, Defendant called Dr. Alan Watts to testify as an expert witness regarding the general probability of Noel being killed in a manner consistent with Defendant’s theory. Doctor Watts described his understanding of the series of events necessary to support Defendant’s theory of the accident: [T]he boy trips on a rug ... and starts to lose balance as he goes forward. He now puts his arms out, and his left arm goes over the top of a nearby sink and catches the top of the hamper a couple inches higher. There are various items on top of the hamper---- And there’s also a screwdriver underneath. His hand sweeps across and somehow moves the screwdriver off the hamper. At the same time, he is falling forward. So what we have is a boy already starting to move and a screwdriver starting from a height of about two feet eight and a half ... and now the issue is can the screwdriver get to the floor before the boy’s chest does. Doctor Watts thereafter discussed basic principles of physics and applied them to the hypothesis that Noel accidentally impaled himself upon a dropped screwdriver. He further demonstrated to the court that a screwdriver or other rod dropped onto a hard surface will bounce. As part of his presentation, he performed several calculations on the board in the court room. These calculations pertained primarily to the angle at which the screwdriver may have landed and the force Noel’s body would have exerted upon it on impact. {71} Doctor Watts made clear that the object of his demonstration was not to prove that Defendant’s screwdriver fell “one way or the other” the day Noel was killed, “but that it’s random every time.” While he stated he could not calculate the precise probability of Noel having been stabbed as Defendant claimed, he did represent that there was “a relatively small overall probability” of such an occurrence, that its occurrence would be a “freakish accident.” He further stated: “So although I can’t predict a precise behavior on any one screwdriver and any one bounce you can anticipate it becomes possible for the blade to be pointing upward as the boy’s body comes down.” {72} The State put on no rebuttal expert testimony. However, it extensively cross-examined Dr. Watts. On cross-examination, the State brought out several factors that Dr. Watts had not considered in formulating his opinion. For example, Dr. Watts did not consider the angle of the wound paths in Noel’s chest and how this would affect the probability of his being stabbed in the manner Defendant suggested. He did not consider the screwdriver’s position on top of the hamper in relation to the other items on the hamper and how this would have affected how it fell. And he did not consider Noel striking the sink with his arm on his way down and how this may have affected the force with which he fell. Juror Interviews {73} In his motion alleging juror misconduct, Defendant identified five jurors who he believed to have information pertaining to the claimed misconduct. In response, the district court conducted in camera, record interviews with these five jurors. In order, the court interviewed Jurors Nos. 9, 4, 10, 7, and 6. {74} Juror No. 9 told the district court that as to the charges Defendant had unlawfully killed his son, the jury was “leaning toward conviction early on.” He also expressed his personal opinion, also formulated early on: [T]hat kid didn’t fall on that screwdriver and stab himself. Just no way. Not in a zillion billion years did that happen. You know, there’s no way a kid can fall with enough force to jab a screwdriver into his chest and not smash his face. How did he not break his nose or bruise his lips[?] How does that happen? It just — it’s impossible to happen. Of Juror No. 7, he noted that he had written “some calculations” on the dryerase board that had been provided to the jury. He also stated: “But, see, I kind of viewed that more as here is a guy that knows numbers, knows mathematics, who knows probabilities. I viewed it as his life experience.” {75} Juror No. 4 also noted that the jury had a show of hands on the murder charge early on and that this ‘Vote” was unanimous in favor of conviction. Of Juror No. 7, he noted that “[h]e didn’t say he did any experiments at home” and that “[h]e didn’t bring papers” into the jury room. He also noted of Juror No. 7’s presentation: “he says, Let’s take Dr. Watts’ figures. And you might fly this by that — being an engineer and probably half-way physisist [sic], he said using his figures, it can’t come out the way he said it did. In my mind, common sense tells me it can’t come out.” {76} Juror No. 10 stated that she “d[id]n’t know if [Juror No. 7] brought anything from home. He did have a couple of figures that he had thought about and it was explaining his point of view on the testimony of Dr. Watts.” She also noted that the jury took early, initial votes on the counts against Defendant, although she could not remember in which order, and that “[tjhere was a lot of guilty, a couple of not guilty and a couple of undecided.” {77} Next, the district court interviewed Juror No. 7, who spoke at length regarding all aspects of the jury’s deliberations. Of his own participation, he maintained that he did not dispute or discredit Dr. Watts’ testimony; instead, he said Dr. Watts’ were “fine calculations and I would agree with the calculations.” Instead of disagreeing with the testimony, he felt it did not “answer the right question,” that is, he could not see the “logical tie” between Dr. Watts’ testimony and Defendant’s conclusion that his son died as he argued. Instead, he felt Defendant’s theory “just doesn’t jive.” Therefore, to “verify [his] own gut feeling” on the subject, Juror No. 7 sought to “quantify” his thinking on the evidence at trial. {78} Toward this end, he walked through “a probability calculation, and [he] did this in [his] head first.” This calculation found its genesis in Dr. Watts’ calculations presented at trial. Juror No. 7 insisted that he conducted no experiments. Instead, he told the court that he used his “professional judgment” and approached the matter as an “engineering problem.” As he stated to the court, echoing Dr. Watts’ explanation of the series of events necessary to prove Defendant’s theory correct, “this whole scenario with [a] screwdriver on top of a hamper ultimately impaling a kid, there’s a sequence that has to occur in some form or fashion for that to happen.” Accordingly, he “did a fairly simple five-step probability” calculation which, again, grew out of Dr. Watts’ testimony. {79} This exercise, in essence, distilled five distinct events from Defendant’s argument of what happened to Noel. Juror No. 7 approached these events as questions: (a) did the screwdriver land at the correct angle to the floor relative to Noel’s falling body?; (b) did it land “blade up”?; (c) did it separate itself, as it fell, from the other items with which it had been knocked off the hamper?; (d) did it land at the correct location on the floor?; and finally (e) how frequently ought such accidental deaths occur in the population-at-large? Of the last question, he stated: Well, I go quite regularly to the hardware stores. I have never seen an OSHA warning label on a screwdriver that says “caution, this might be hazardous to your health, take the following precautions.” ... So I am saying man, there’s no-I guess you would call that consumer protection or something, but there’s no evidence from somebody that that’s kind of their job to look out for our protection on this that ever indicates there’s a problem. It is not clear from the record to what extent Juror No. 7 conducted this inquiry in his head and to what extent he shared it with his colleagues on the jury. {80} Finally, the court interviewed Juror No. 6. Of Juror No. 7, she stated: “I feel that the particular juror that-the engineer juror, to me that was just his way of venting his feelings and thoughts and emotions during the deliberation.” She further stated: We all went home that weekend over deliberation, and it was on my mind, the whole trial during the whole weekend, and I don’t see how any of us could have not thought about it. If he took it upon himself to do the calculations and maybe possibly explain a few things in better English that certain people could understand-I mean, during deliberation I think jurors discuss all the evidence and, you know, some things are presented to us in such a legal fashion that it kind of goes over our head maybe, and sometimes we do need it just explained on like a kindergartner level. {81} None of the jurors told the district court that Juror No. 7’s statements played a significant role in their having reached the decision they did. After conducting the interviews, the district court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial, ruling that no juror misconduct had occurred; that is, the district court ruled Defendant had failed to show that Juror No. 7 had introduced any extraneous influence to the deliberations. Specifically, the court stated: The one thing that I do know is I am not God. I am sworn to do this job under the boundaries of the law. At the same time to attempt, if such occurs, to correct what is an obvious ... miscarriage of justice. What I cannot do and should not do is place my personal feelings, my feelings of what may or may not have been done by the jury. As I stated before, I believe in the jury system. [Ajgain, and after the most serious contemplation, I find that there has not been sufficient evidence before this Court to require either a further inquiry into the jury’s conduct, nor is there such that would require me in my role as a judge to set aside that verdict. I feel I believe in the jury system. I believe that the jury in this case took the evidence as they saw it in court, made a decision based on their [consciences] and on the evidence presented in court, although some people may feel that they would have come to a different resolution. That is not what our system is about, and for me to place myself in the stead of the jury to overturn that would be, I feel, [betrayal] of everything I believe about our system. {82} Defendant appeals from this ruling. DISCUSSION {83} As a central matter, this appeal implicates an age-old and venerated interest. The analysis we apply today has evolved expressly to safeguard the secrecy of jury deliberations from unwarranted invasion.  {84} The privacy of jury deliberations has been protected as nearly inviolable since the seventeenth century. See generally Note, Public Disclosures of Jury Deliberations, 96 Harv. L.Rev. 886, 891 n. 31 (1983). This protection is not motivated by some anachronistic concern, but is founded upon the prevailing interests of ensuring freedom of expression and debate, preventing the harassment of jurors, insulating the jury decision-making process from public pressure, and securing stability within the system and finality of judgments. See, e.g., Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13, 53 S.Ct. 465, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933); Duran v. Lovato, 99 N.M. 242, 247, 656 P.2d 905, 910 (Ct.App.1982); see generally Public Disclosures of Jury Deliberations, 96 Harv. L.Rev. at 888-92. Above all, we rely upon juries to perform the profoundly democratic function of standing between an accused and the prosecutorial machinery of the State. For all these reasons, courts have long been understandably reluctant to intrude upon juror execution of this duty. See, e.g., McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915) (noting concern that “all verdicts could be, and many would be, followed by an inquiry in the hope of discovering something which might invalidate the finding”); Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986, 1009 (7th Cir.1990) (recognizing potential of “constant attempts to undermine jury verdicts through the scrutiny of the juror’s thoughts and deliberations”); Hurst v. Citadel, Ltd., 111 N.M. 566, 570, 807 P.2d 750, 754 (Ct.App.1991) (declining to review affidavits pertaining to intrajuror communications).  {85} In deference to these concerns, we have disallowed inquiries into matters intrinsic and allowed inquiry only into matters extrinsic to the deliberative process. See, e.g., Rule 11-606(B) NMRA 2000; Hurst, 111 N.M. at 569, 807 P.2d at 753; see also Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278, 1302 (Del.1991) (discussing explicit distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic influences on jury deliberations). For this reason, it was Defendant’s threshold burden below to show that something extrinsic to the trial process made its way into the jury’s deliberation of the charges against him. This burden is not discharged merely by allegation; rather, Defendant must make an affirmative showing that some extraneous influence came to bear on the jury’s deliberations. See State v. Sena, 105 N.M. 686, 688, 736 P.2d 491, 493 (1987) (ending inquiry upon defendant’s failure to adduce sufficient evidence of juror misconduct). Only upon his discharge of this burden will a court make any inquiry as to what prejudice this impermissible influence worked. Did Juror No. 7 introduce an extraneous influence wpon deliberations? {86} This appeal raises a pair of related, but subtly distinct questions. First, does Juror No. 7’s status as an engineer, with a general technical background, render his active participation in deliberations an extraneous influence on the process? And second, did the substance of Juror No. 7’s statements to his fellow jurors introduce an extraneous influence upon deliberations? 1. Juror No. 7’s professional status.  {87} Defendant knew of Juror No. 7’s professional status and technical background prior to selecting him to serve on the jury. Indeed, the district court noted the “extensive voir dire” in issuing his ruling on Defendant’s motion. During the voir dire, Juror No. 7 disclosed that he was an engineer and that he worked for Sandia National Laboratories. Furthermore, in his answers to the pre-voir dire questionnaire, he disclosed this technical background and training. Defendant made no objection — either for cause or peremptory — in light of these disclosures. Perhaps, Defendant overlooked the potential significance of what Juror No. 7 could bring to deliberations, or perhaps, he believed that someone of Juror No. 7’s training could benefit his ease; indeed, as Juror No. 7 stated during his in camera interview: [B]ased on what I heard from talking with the defense attorneys during this interim after the trial, the feedback I got from them is that yeah, Mr. Twohig in fact wanted me on the jury because I guess he thought that I was going to be the guy that would listen to his expert and then somewhat rubber stamp it and say, “Oh, yes, this is all correct, etc. etc.” We determine that Juror No. 7’s professional training, without more, could not constitute an extraneous influence; indeed, Defendant’s knowing acceptance of Juror No. 7 rendered his specialized training — as a general matter — intrinsic to the jury and the trial as a whole. Cf. United States v. Costa, 890 F.2d 480, 482 (1st Cir.1989) (commenting in analogous context that “[a]ny other rule would allow defendants to sandbag the court by remaining silent and gambling on a favorable verdict, knowing that if the verdict went against them, they could always obtain a new trial by later raising the issue of juror misconduct”). {88} The case of Richards v. Overlake Hospital Medical Center, 59 Wash.App. 266, 796 P.2d 737 (1990) is largely indistinguishable from the appeal at bar. In that case, a plaintiff, claiming medical malpractice upon birth defects in her new-born child, sought to reverse an adverse jury verdict upon claimed juror misconduct. See id at 740. The plaintiff alleged that one of the jurors, an individual with medical expertise, had argued to her fellow jurors that plaintiffs medical records, which had been admitted into evidence, indicated a viral infection. See id at 742. The plaintiff further alleged that this juror stated during deliberations her opinion that this infection, rather than any malpractice, is what likely caused the subject birth defects. See id The Washington Court of Appeals found no misconduct, stating: The evidence of a viral infection at the 16-to 20-week stage of the pregnancy was before the jury from the testimony of one of the doctors and in the medical reports. Juror Geisler’s background was known to the parties at the time of voir dire and her “medical” knowledge was something she naturally brought in with her to the deliberations, and this was known by all the parties after voir dire. The medical records were introduced into evidence and sent to the jury room with the jury for its use in the deliberations. There was no extrinsic evidence brought into the case and thus there was no misconduct. Id. at 743. Implicit in this conclusion, the court considered the juror’s disclosed and knowingly-accepted specialized knowledge to be intrinsic to the process. {89} In the present case, Defendant knew of Juror No. 7’s training and background, “something [he] naturally brought in with [him] to the deliberations.” Id. Furthermore, Dr. Watts’ testimony — that is, his testimony adduced on both direct and cross-examinations — was before the jury. The probability of events occurring as Defendant posited was fundamental to the case; evidence upon it had been admitted and amply argued. See State v. Chamberlain, 112 N.M. 723, 733, 819 P.2d 673, 683 (1991) (concluding juror experiment with evidence was not improper when “the background information was all properly before the jury”). Upon this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Juror No. 7’s training and profession did not constitute an extrinsic influence upon the deliberative process. {90} As the Supreme Court of California has recognized, “[i]t is not improper for a juror, regardless of his or her educational or employment background, to express an opinion on a technical subject, so long as the opinion is based on the evidence at trial.” In re Malone, 12 Cal.4th 935, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281, 911 P.2d 468, 486 (1996); accord Titus v. State, 963 P.2d 258, 262 (Alaska 1998) (“[J]urors can make intelligent decisions only by drawing upon their accumulated background knowledge and experience.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Dascenzo, 30 N.M. 34, 37, 226 P. 1099, 1100 (1924) (“In deciding every case, jurors must necessarily take into consideration their knowledge and impressions founded upon experience in their everyday walks of life, and the fact that these things affect them in reaching their verdict cannot be reversible error.”).  {91} Similarly, we have consistently held that jurors are expected to rely upon their life experiences and background during deliberations. See, e.g., Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 732, 819 P.2d at 682 (“[T]he jury must be allowed latitude to evaluate evidence and to use its experience to deliberate.”). “Specialized knowledge” — of which professional training and educational background are certainly species — is a form of “life experience” and “background.” See In re Malone, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281, 911 P.2d at 486 (“Jurors’ views of the evidence, moreover, are necessarily informed by their life experiences, including their education and professional work.”); cf. Titus, 963 P.2d at 262-64 (noting “familiarity with x-ray technology” as a type of general knowledge and discussing distinction between general and specific knowledge); Wagner v. Doulton, 112 Cal.App.3d 945, 169 Cal.Rptr. 550, 552 (1980) (concluding engineer-juror’s taking it upon himself to draft diagram based upon evidence at trial did not introduce extrinsic influence upon deliberations). {92} Furthermore, we believe that to hold otherwise — that is, to regulate separately the participation of jurors with specialized knowledge — would result in an unprecedented and unnecessary intrusion upon the deliberative process of juries, a curtailment of the constitutional right and duty every citizen has to serve on a jury, and establish a rule that would be nearly impossible to enforce without pro forma, post-verdict inquiry into the substance of each jury’s deliberations. Cf. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 733, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (Clark, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is an impossible standard to require that tribunal to be a laboratory, completely sterilized and freed from external factors.”); Dascenzo, 30 N.M. at 37, 226 P. at 1100 (“[J]urors without possessing such knowledge and impressions could not be had.”). We see no purpose served by such a formulaic “dumbing down” of our juries, that is, by treating as inherently suspect a juror’s known possession of professional knowledge. See Robert D. Myers, Complex Scientific Evidence and the Jury, Judicature, Nov.-Dec.1999, at 150, 154 (“[L]awyers who believe in ‘dumbing down’ juries should ... recognize the important role of jurors as fact finders and decision makers.”).  {93} Rather than relying solely upon an individual juror’s professional status or training, courts have found misconduct only upon a showing that something extra-record corrupted jury deliberations, that is, the introduction of extrajudicial facts, authority, or issues. For example, in State v. Thacker, 95 Nev. 500, 596 P.2d 508, 508 (1979) (per curiam), relied upon by our Supreme Court in Sacoman and by Defendant in this case, two defendants appealed their convictions for grand larceny of two calves and were granted, upon their initial motion, a new trial. See id. at 509. Their theory of defense was essentially one of mistaken identification; that is, they argued that the cattle the authorities had seized from them were not the animals that had been stolen. See id. To support this contention, they argued that the seized cattle were smaller than the stolen cattle. The trial court admitted several photographs into evidence related to this point and permitted the jury to examine the impounded cattle. See id No evidence, however, was “presented at trial concerning the weight of the cattle or what the animals had been fed during the impound.” Id. After the jury convicted, the defendants alleged juror misconduct. {94} As it turned out, one of the jurors— indeed, the jury foreman — was the “superintendent in charge of cattle operations at Nevada Nile Ranch,” the facility where the allegedly stolen calves had been impounded upon their recovery. Id This cattleman-juror, despite the lack of evidence on the subject, took it upon himself, in reliance upon his knowledge of livestock and feed, to “computet] an estimate of what he thought the calves weighed ... and gave his information to the other jurors.” Id. Upon this introduction of fact not in evidence, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial. {95} This holding is consistent with the Supreme Court of California’s opinion in In re Malone, noted above. Therein, the court denied the habeas corpus petition of a defendant convicted and sentenced to death, in part upon polygraph evidence, on a charge of first-degree murder. See In re Malone, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281, 911 P.2d at 472-74. The defendant alleged juror misconduct in light of the fact that one of the jurors, a professional psychologist, had argued to the other jurors as to the reliability of polygraph testing generally and as to the adequacy of the administration of the polygraph test specifically at issue. The court stated in this regard: It is not improper for a juror, regardless of his or her educational or employment background, to express an opinion on a technical subject, so long as the opinion is based on the evidence at trial. Jurors’ views of the evidence, moreover, are necessarily informed by their life experiences, including their education and professional work. A juror, however, should not discuss an opinion explicitly based on specialized information obtained from outside sources. In re Malone, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281, 911 P.2d at 486. {96} Applying this general rule, the court held that the psychologist-juror had committed misconduct, albeit without prejudice. Despite some of the California Supreme Court’s broad language, a closer reading of the case demonstrates, as in Thacker, that it was not merely the psychologist-juror’s specialized training that gave the court pause— indeed, she admitted to her fellow jurors as to not being “an expert on polygraphs.” Id at 476. Instead, it was the fact that she had specifically based her opinion “on her readings” and on “professional articles on the subject,” that is, sources of authority not in evidence. Id. at 476, 486. {97} This is perhaps a fine line to draw, but the distinction is nonetheless critical: The California court premised its conclusion of juror misconduct upon the psychologist-juror’s telling of her “fellow jurors [that] her professional reading and course work made her doubt” the testimony presented at trial, id at 475, that is, that the psychologist-juror “told the other jurors [her] beliefs were based on her readings,” not the evidence adduced at trial, id. at 476. It was this communicated invocation of “specialized information obtained from outside sources” that the court held to cross the line between appropriate and inappropriate juror conduct. Id. at 486; accord McDonald v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 71 Cal.App.4th 256, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 734, 738 (Ct.App.1999) (reversing upon railwayman-juror’s introduction and expansive discussion of the issue of “sensors,” regarding which there had been no evidence presented or argument made at trial).  {98} These cases reinforce our conclusion that it is not merely a juror’s possession of or reliance upon his or her education or professional training that is improper. See In re Malone, 911 P.2d at 476, 486. Instead, it is misconduct for a juror to invoke his or her expertise with the effect of introducing an extrajudicial influence, be it an extra-record fact, see Thacker, 596 P.2d at 509, source of authority, see In re Malone, 911 P.2d at 476, 486, or issue, see McDonald, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d at 738. 2. Juror No. 7’s statements during deliberation. {99} Turning to the facts before us: Juror No. 7 is a professional engineer who possesses pre-existing, technical knowledge of a general nature; he disclosed this background on voir dire and Defendant did not object to his impanelment; Juror No. 7 relied upon his professional background in formulating his subjective take on the evidence presented at trial; he shared his opinions with his fellow jurors, a presentation which his fellow jurors, not this Court, characterized as an expression of his “life experience,” as “common sense,” as “explaining his point of view on the testimony of Dr. Watts,” as “on like a kindergartner level”. In so sharing his view of the evidence, he specifically discussed the expert testimony at trial; and finally, in so examining this testimony, he noted, as emphasized by the State during its cross-examination of Dr. Watts, the questions he felt it had failed to address and what he felt to be the lack of any “logical tie” between it and Defendant’s theory of defense. {100} The record does not indicate that: Juror No. 7 referred to or relied upon any articles or extra-record authority in support of his view of the evidence; he brought into the jury room any physical object — be it notes or models — with which to assist in his presentation; he performed any “experiments” outside the jury room; he possessed any specific, pre-existing knowledge of the ease he was to judge; or he introduced any fact to the jury’s deliberations that was extrinsic to the record.  {101} Upon this record, we do not agree with Defendant that Juror No. 7 acted improperly by: (a) expressing his “professional opinion” as to Dr. Watts’ expert testimony; (b) voicing his opinion as to what he felt were the limitations of Dr. Watts’ testimony, that is, that he felt counsel “didn’t ask the right questions”; and (c) offering a “formal presentation” to his fellow jurors that illustrated his subjective view of the evidence at trial. Instead, we conclude that the record supports the district court’s ruling that no extraneous material corrupted the jury’s deliberations. {102} First, it was not improper for Juror No. 7 to have expressed his “professional opinion.” As we have discussed, Juror No. 7 did not act improperly by bringing his profession and training into the jury room. See In re Malone, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281, 911 P.2d at 486; cf. Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 732, 819 P.2d at 682. This is especially the ease as Defendant knew of his profession and training on voir dire. See Richards, 796 P.2d at 743. Moreover, upon our review of the applicable law and the record before us, Juror No. 7’s expression of his “professional opinion” appears to have been nothing more than the expression of his subjective take on the evidence in record. As his fellow jurors stated to the district court judge during the in camera interviews, Juror No. 7 did little more than express his opinion based on his “life experience”; indeed, despite Defendant’s characterization of the record, it indicates that Juror No. 7 presented this opinion “on like a kindergartner level.”  {103} Second, it was not improper for Juror No. 7 to have expressed what he felt were the questions Dr. Watts’ testimony did not answer. In this regard, Juror No. 7 is guflty only of recognizing and sharing his view of the deficiencies and logical missteps of Defendant’s presentation, much like Juror No. 9 did in noting the absence of any facial trauma to Noel after his alleged fall. Moreover, Juror No. 7 did not suggest deficiencies in Defendant’s case out of whole cloth: His comments paralleled the questions the State asked Dr. Watts on cross-examination. A jury’s recognition and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the cases presented at trial is not misconduct. See Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 732, 819 P.2d at 682 (“The jury is not bound by expert opinion.”). It is its function. See id. at 733, 819 P.2d at 683 (“The jury was required to evaluate these conflicting versions of the truth, and it properly used the evidence before it to perform its duty.”); cf. Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Colum. L.Rev. 1197, 1237 (1980) (“The major danger of scientific evidence is its potential to mislead the jury; an aura of scientific infallibility may shroud the evidence and thus lead the jury to accept it without critical scrutiny.”). {104} Taking this view, we do not agree with Defendant that Juror No. 7 acted as an unsworn witness, offering unchallenged expert testimony for the jury’s consideration. See McMann, 435 F.2d at 818 (“The touchstone of decision in a ease such as we have here is thus not the mere fact of infiltration of some molecules of extra-record matter, with the supposed consequences that the infiltrator becomes a “witness’ and the confrontation clause automatically applies, but the nature of what has been infiltrated and the probability of prejudice.”). Instead, the record supports a conclusion that Juror No. 7 offered no new facts, see Thacker, 596 P.2d at 509; that he relied only upon his subjective view of the evidence and no outside authority, see In re Malone, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281, 911 P.2d at 476, 486; and that he introduced no subject to the deliberations that had not already been fully argued at trial, see Thacker, 596 P.2d at 509; McDonald, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d at 738.  {105} Similarly, the record supports a conclusion Juror No. 7 committed no misconduct in sharing his opinion and observation by means of a “formal presentation” complete with “calculations” drawn upon a court-provided dry-erase board. Cf. McMann, 435 F.2d at 817 (“To resort to the metaphor that the moment a juror passes a fraction of an inch beyond the record evidence he becomes ‘an unsworn witness’ is to ignore centuries of history and assume an answer rather than to provide the basis for one.”). Simply, it is not the medium of his argument that matters; it is its substance. {106} Juror No. 7’s presentation of calculations based upon the evidence at trial was, at most, akin to juror experimentation. As a general matter, while juror experimentation is improper, juror experimentation with evidence is not, per se, misconduct. See Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 732, 819 P.2d at 682 (holding jury experimentation with admitted evidence not to be misconduct despite experimentation expanding upon issues raised at trial); see generally Carroll J. Miller, Annotation, Propriety Of Juror’s Tests Or Experiments In Jury Roam, 31 A.L.R.4th 566 (1984). “The salient question is whether the experiment or investigation made by the jury ... can be said to be within the scope or purview of the evidence introduced at the trial, or whether it amounts to the taking of evidence outside the presence of the parties.” Taylor v. REO Motors, Inc., 275 F.2d 699, 705 (10th Cir.1960). Defendant has adduced no evidence corroborating his claim that Juror No. 7 strayed beyond “the scope or purview of the evidence.” Id.  {107} In short, Juror No. 7 engaged in rigorous scrutiny of trial testimony and articulate juror argument—argument informed by his particular and known professional training and life experience. Juror argument, no matter how persuasive or weighty, is not, in and of itself, misconduct. See, e.g., Ertsgaard v. Beard, 310 Or. 486, 800 P.2d 759, 766 (1990) (“In the relatively few cases in which this court has either permitted or required a new trial for juror misconduct that occurred during the deliberating process, we have found none in which the misconduct consisted solely of juror argument.”); cf. Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Impeachment Of Verdict By Juror’s Evidence That He Was Coerced Or Intimidated By Fellow Juror, 39 A.L.R.4th 800, §§ 4, 6(b), 7 (1985) (noting cases where intrajuror intimidation and coercion have been deemed intrinsic to the deliberative process). We therefore conclude, based on all of these considerations, that the allegations of juror misconduct in the present ease do not rise to the level of reversible error, as that threshold is suggested by decisions of our Supreme Court. Compare Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 732, 819 P.2d at 682 (determining no misconduct had occurred despite juror experiments that arguably went beyond issues raised at trial) with Duran, 99 N.M. at 248, 656 P.2d at 911 (concluding independent extrajudicial experiments conducted by a subset of the jury outside of the jury room “may constitute extraneous evidence” (emphasis added)).  {108} We agree with our dissenting colleague that the juror misconduct question presented turns largely upon a judgment call. The extraneousness of any influence upon a jury’s deliberations is inherently a fact-bound question, a question upon which the district court — as having presided over the presentation of all evidence and argument — is ideally situated to rule in the first instance. We conclude on the record presented that the district court did not act contrary to logic and reason in ruling that the jury based its verdict solely upon the evidence adduced at trial and their own, individual consciences. In light of this holding, we need not reach the second prong of the analysis that addresses the possibility of prejudice to the Defendant. CONCLUSION {109} The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. The denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial is affirmed. {110} IT IS SO ORDERED. WECHSLER, J., concurs.