Court Opinion

ID: 9743976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:51:27.686808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:23.209722
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GEIGER, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the majority’s determination of the nature of the extraneous information used by the jury in this case. As the supreme court enunciated in People v. Holmes (1978), 69 Ill. 2d 507, and as the majority has recited, there are two general types of juror testimony or affidavits offered to impeach a verdict. In this case we consider a map drawn by one juror and presented to the other jurors as an accurate factual representation. I would find that that map is not a reflection of the thought process of the jury but, rather, the same as evidence presented to prove a disputed fact. Juror statements relating that the map was used by the jury, therefore, fall squarely into the Holmes category of evidence that may be used to impeach a verdict. Here, the defendant sought to impeach ’ the verdict with evidence that from independent exploration one juror determined the geographical layout of an area critical to the charged offense. According to the defendant’s evidence, that juror brought the results of her determination to the jury room and drew a map for the other jurors to consider. I see no difference between that basis for impeachment and the evidence that was found to impeach the verdict in other cases. Holmes, 69 Ill. 2d at 510, 516 (evidence that several jurors visited a shoe store to look at shoe soles and reported back to the other jurors); Haight v. Aldridge Electric Co. (1991), 215 Ill. App. 3d 353, 368-69 (evidence that a juror looked at an almanac to determine the time of sunset on the date of the accident in question); Heaver v. Ward (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 236, 239 (evidence that the jury foreman made an independent visit to the intersection at issue and brought a diagram of the intersection and a copy of the publication “Rules of the Road” to the jury room); People v. Spice (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 539, 543 (evidence that a juror visited the scene of the occurrence and described his visit to the jury). Although the map-drawing juror’s independent investigation in this case took place at some earlier time, there can be no doubt that the result of that investigation directly related to a critical issue in the case — the defendant’s physical ability to commit the offense. There also can be no doubt that the juror’s map was presented to the jury without the benefit of cross-examination or review by counsel. If we allow this type of factual matter to be presented to the jury in the jury room and not in the courtroom, we are depriving the parties to the litigation of their right of confrontation. It is clear that the extraneous information presented as facts in the jury room was not on matters of knowledge common to all of the jurors. The rule should be, and in my opinion is, that the place for the presentation of factual matters is the courtroom and not the jury room. I would find that the juror statements here, like the evidence in Holmes, Haight, Heaver, and Spice, should have been considered in impeachment of the verdict.