Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down State v. Gunnell. In Gunnell, a juror went online and looked up the terms "perverse" and "involuntary manslaughter." Interestingly, prior to going online, the jury had asked the court for a definition of "perverse." However, the court failed to respond to the jury's request.
The trial judge's deputy discovered the juror's misconduct during deliberations and the court held a brief hearing on the issue. The judge questioned the juror about her actions; however, he never enquired as to whether the juror was biased or prejudiced by her research. After the evidentiary hearing, the judge, against the wishes of defense counsel, ordered a mistrial.
When the government sought to retry the defendant, she claimed that this new trial violated her 5th Amendment rights against being placed in Double Jeopardy. This objection was based on the theory that the earlier decision to order a mistrial was not due to "manifest necessity." This objection was overruled and the trial went forward. The defendant was convicted and she appealed.
The appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction finding that there was not "manifest necessity" to support the trial judge's decision to order a mistrial. The state then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which upheld the appellate court's decision. The Ohio Supreme Court found that
although a trial judge’s determination of juror bias is entitled to great deference, it must be predicated on the judge’s proper discretion in hearing the case. Mere supposition, surmise, and possibility of prejudice are not sufficient. This distinction is a simple but critical one, and one that was overlooked by the trial judge in this case. Although a trial judge’s determination of juror bias sufficient to create the need to declare a mistrial is a matter of discretion, the record here reveals nothing of substance from which the judge made his determination.
For a more complete discussion of this case go to the blog Legally Speaking Ohio.