Judge Admonished for Post-Trial Discussion with Jurors (Davis v. Husain)

A NJ Appellate court has admonished a trial judge for post trial ex parte communications with jurors.  In Davis v. Husain, an employment discrimination case, the NJ appellate court stated that

We pause to express our strong disapproval of judges who speak to jurors in cases that have been tried to conclusion, as opposed to cases that have been settled or mistried during trial. Such communications run the significant risk that one or more jurors will say something that then becomes an issue with respect to the verdict reached, as happened here.

In this particular case, the trial judge, at the conclusion of the case, met with the jurors in the jury room to talk about the case.  One juror noted to the judge that the defendant failed to place his hand on the Bible when he took the oath to testify. The judge passed along the juror's comment to the attorneys handling the case.  On appeal, the attorney for the defendant used the juror's comment as grounds for granting a new trial.  Although the appellate court found the comment insufficient to overturn the verdict, it noted its disapproval of ex parte post-trial communication by judges with jurors.