Last week, an Illinois appellate court in Eskew v. Burlington and Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company decided that a juror's blog posts (Green Room) made during trial were insufficient grounds to overturn a $4.5 million verdict. This wrongful death lawsuit was brought by the widow of a blind man who was struck and killed by a train outside of Chicago.
According to the defendants who appealed the verdict, the trial court erred in refusing to conduct voir dire [evidentiary hearing] to determine whether the integrity of the jury's process has been compromised. The defendants further asserted that the trial court erred in failing to investigate whether the verdict was contaminated because some of the jury members violated their oaths and were presented with improper 'extraneous information.'
The appellate court, after reviewing the blog posts, did not find the defendants' arguments convincing. Rather, the appellate court determined that nothing in the blog entries indicated that any information was received either from the husband of the juror who maintained the blog or from any other source of information. The appellate court went on to find that they were in agreement with the trial court's conclusion that the statements contained in the blog entries are not sufficient to show that the jury's verdict was tainted by external influences.
This case illustrates the difficulty in getting a verdict overturned due to improper juror communications. Unlike misconduct based on juror research, courts are very hesitant to disturb a verdict solely because a juror discussed the case on the Internet.
For more information about this case see:
ABA Journal, Illinois Appeals Court Upholds Verdict Despite Blogging Juror’s Observations
h/tip Judge (ret.) Dennis M. Sweeney
Comments