Midway Water Lawyers Seek New Trial Based on Bizarre Behavior by Jury Forewoman
Last year, Midway Water System in Florida was held primarily responsible for a piping misconnection that allowed raw sewage to enter home water systems in the Gulf Breeze-area. Now, lawyers for Midway are seeking a new trial based upon alleged misconduct by the jury forewoman. This includes:
-instructing fellow jurors to wear yellow flowers on their clothing based on the rationale that “in the gypsy culture a yellow flower means you are willing to award money provided you get a cut of it.”
-notified her fellow jurors that she knew a woman who was listed as a plaintiff in the case and, having failed to disclose that during jury selection, was afraid the woman would recognize her when providing testimony;
-took it upon herself to obtain “detailed legal information” regarding statute of limitations laws in civil cases, class action cases in general and fee structures for contingency cases.
-told fellow jurors that she could hear what was being said during sidebar discussions between the judge and attorneys for each side and shared what she had heard with fellow jurors, the motion states.
-acted distracted and was on her phone during deliberations and urged the group to reach a verdict on Nov. 20 so she could make her son’s 18th birthday celebration.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’ll keep my focus on just two of these allegations. The last one is a non-starter. A juror acting distracted and/or having her vote influenced by wanting to make a vacation, party, et.c have been held by courts across the country to not be the kind of behavior that necessitates a new trial.
On the other hand, the second allegation is interesting. As I wrote in the recent filing for Amanda Lewis,
[T]he opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995) sets forth the procedure for when a trial court can dismiss a juror mid-trial when it comes to light that he has a connection with a party or witness: “First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. Second, that the juror concealed the information during questioning. Lastly, that the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party’s lack of diligence.” Id. at 241. This three-part test “applies equally to both civil and criminal cases.” Buoy v. State, 762 So.2d 537, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
And then, if lawyers learn this information about a juror after trial, it’s grounds for a new trial if De La Rosa would have applied during trial.
I don’t think the lawyers for Midway Water System will have any problem establishing factors two and three. But the first factor is a big question mark, and it’s tough to say how the judge might rule without knowing additional facts.