Jury Misconduct Or Sour Grapes?
The Orlando Sentinel reports that time-share mogul David Siegel and his attorneys are claiming jurors in Siegel’s sexual-harassment trial failed to disclose important information about their personal litigation histories during jury selection. This conduct reflects a troubling trend of “sour grapes” research into the personal lives of jurors AFTER a verdict is returned.
The law requires that litigants and their attorneys exercise due diligence during jury selection. Thus, if an issue is not raised by counsel during jury selection, a juror should not be criticized afterwards for non disclosure.
In this case (and others like it), why didn’t Siegel’s fleet of lawyers see fit to research the jurors’ histories while the lengthy trial was ongoing? Perhaps it was because they thought they were winning! It was only after the verdict didn’t go their way that Siegel’s lawyers began crying foul.
Last year, our firm was involved in two jury trials where the defense claimed “juror misconduct” after the jury ruled against their clients. The defense lawyers in each of these cases never asked questions about the subject matter they later claimed the jurors concealed, nor did they investigate the jury’s background during the trial. In both cases, the trial court judge denied defense motions for a new trial in part due to their failure to ask questions when they had the opportunity. If Mr. Siegel’s lawyers failed to ask direct questions about juror litigation history, they should not be able to cry foul after the fact.
