March 5, 2010
Intimidated juror not grounds for new trial
By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

I've written before about how the wheels of justice grind slowly. But more than nine years to resolve a simple car crash case? That's ridiculous!

Way back when — on Nov. 14, 2000 to be exact — Linda Gaines was driving northbound on Highway 411 in Sevier County, Tenn. After stopping to make a left turn, she was rear-ended by another car.

Gaines later sued the other driver, Leslie Tenney, for negligence, seeking damages for her injuries, medical bills and lost income. Apparently thinking she wasn't hurt that badly, Gaines originally filed suit in a court with a $25,000 cap on damages. But in March 2003, she transferred her case to a Tennessee circuit court, which has no jurisdictional limit on the amount a plaintiff can recover.

When the case first went to trial in June 2004, a Sevier County jury awarded Gaines only $10,000. She then moved for a new trial on the ground of jury misconduct. To support her motion, Gaines relied on testimony from one of the jurors, Janet Markley, who had expressed concern to court staff about how the jury reached its verdict.

According to Markley, some of the jurors were adamant about not wanting to spend much time on deliberations.

In particular, one male juror said he didn't want to deliberate into the evening, let alone return the next day. When Markley instead suggested they spend more time discussing the case, the juror became verbally abusive, started “cussing and swearing” at her, and even threw paper at her.

Taken aback by this hostility and also feeling intimidated and pressured, Markley capitulated and went along with the small verdict. She had even feared for her safety, Markley said, adding that while driving around town the next day, she kept checking her rear-view mirror to see if the male juror was following her.

Under Tennessee law, jurors usually can't testify about what took place during deliberations. An exception exists, however, where the testimony shows an “outside influence” was “improperly brought to bear” upon any juror.

Although the trial court said the pressure from other jurors didn't amount to an “outside influence,” it nonetheless ruled in Gaines's favor. A new trial was required, said the court, because the attack on Markley had “subverted” the jury's role to deliberate and “fully evaluate” the evidence — and also likely had a “chilling effect” on other members of the jury.

For unknown reasons, the defendant didn't appeal this ruling. Instead, a second trial was conducted before a different jury, resulting in a $30,000 verdict for the plaintiff.

This time, Tenney filed an appeal. But instead of claiming errors had occurred at the second trial, the defendant only appealed the earlier order in 2004 that granted the new trial.

Following another lengthy delay, a Tennessee appeals court recently announced its decision.

The trial court was “understandably concerned,” said the appeals court, that the jury's deliberations could've been compromised if one of the jurors had been intimidated and even feared for her safety. But at the end of the day, Tenney was the declared winner.

The “overarching purpose” of the rule barring post-trial testimony from jurors, said the appeals court, is to “protect the integrity” of the jury's deliberative process. This way, the court explained, jurors can freely exchange ideas or evaluate the evidence without fear of “later scrutiny.”

So since the “outside influence” exception didn't apply, the court ultimately ruled that the admission of Markley's post-trial testimony was “clear error.”

This definitely didn't bode well for Gaines, as her new trial motion was based solely on Markley's inadmissible testimony. As a consequence, since the second trial never should've happened, the appeals court said the original $10,000 judgment had to be restored. Adding insult to injury, the court also said Gaines had to pay Tenney for her costs on appeal.

So is Gaines still licking her wounds?

Probably. But if you ask me, over nine years and one pointless trial later, our so-called “civil justice system” should be doing likewise