Can you talk to the Jury

[crystallblue]

My ex's mother brought a civil suit onto me. We had a 3 day juried trial, I ended up winning on my own because I couldn't afford an attorney. The jury voted 9-3 in favor for me. They are now trying to get a retrial because they said that one of the jury members came up to them afterwards and said sorry that you didn't win and said that they were confused about some stuff. My ex mother in-law's attorney tried to get the judge that heard our trial to approve that they get the jury's personal information to get statements from them. The judge denied them. Then they asked another judge and he said that he didn't have any say about it that the other judge had to hear the case.....anyways I recieved paperwork on Friday from the other parties attorney with a statement from one of the jurors saying that she was the 9th juror and that she was confused about the instructions. Is that legal that they were able to get a statement or ever talk to this juror after he had been told twice no?? We go to court on Friday to be able to see if this thing will go back to trial. I still don't have an attorney, and I am going to try to do this one by myself again.... If I can get any help at all with this situation I would really appreciate it. I need to know if what he did is legal. This attorney is totally ruthless and is a snake and does anything he wants to obviously.....

 

[dee_dub]

It's not illegal to talk to the jury. It looks to me like opposing counsel wasn't told "don't talk to the jury", he was simply not given their personal information. He found it out some other way, the enterprising fellow. The question is, what now?

I would question whether jury comments are admissible in court because they are not relevant. As far as I know, whether a jury verdict is impeachable is solely a function of whether the instructions were defective. If I were you, I would argue that if the instructions were acceptable, the verdict stands. Even if a juror was confused anyways.

I would also argue that the opposing party had a chance to challenge the juror selection. He approved of the jurors, and that's the end of the story. What he's doing now is essentially retroactively challenging the juror selection because he got an unfavourable verdict. He can't now be heard to complain about the jurors after approving them. He elected a trial by his peers, and that's what he got.

I would also see if you have the opportunity to examine the juror to see whether they really were confused, and how, and whether their confusion in any way impacted the judgment. If it is confusion over a minor detail that, when clarified, would have resulted in the same verdict, this juror's confusion is immaterial. Or, perhaps, if it's only one juror, the remaining jurors votes would be sufficient for you to win anyways.

 

[crystallblue]

Thank you, most of what you were saying it what I was going to state in court. I just needed it clarrified so I didn't look like an idiot in court. This attorney always get away with everything that he does for some reason. I know from other attorneys and law officers that he is very upset that he was beat by someone with no law back ground at all. So I know that he's just doing this because of that.
Thanks again.

 

[dee_dub]

You're welcome, and good luck.

 

[crystallblue]

Another quick question???? How many times can they try to appeal this?