Court Opinion

ID: 9776013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:16:33.701108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:32.910937
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the principal opinion. It provides an effective solution to a vexing problem.
My initial predilection was in favor of affirmance. The trial judge reacted appro*153priately to an emergency situation. When the jury returned to the courtroom after the all clear, counsel made no request or suggestion for an inquiry about the possibility of improper influences. The opportunity for an immediate resolution of the problem, when memories were freshest, was irretrievably lost. The defendant did not complain until after he saw the verdict.
I agree that jurors may testify as to the presence or absence of outside influences. Defense counsel did not make an offer of proof at the hearing on the motion for new trial. But the trial judge should not have quashed the subpoenas to the jurors, and I am now willing to allow the defense to have the benefit of their testimony. I am not persuaded that the jurors would be unable to recall any approaches made of them during the time spent in the basement, had there been any.