In an unpublished opinion of Oct. 13, 2016, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed a unanimous jury verdict because of what was perceived to be plain error arising from the judge’s ex parte communication with the jury. In Weber v. Patel, et al. (A-2293-14T2), the court considered a personal injury action in which the jury had begun its deliberations at 2:27 p.m. on Oct. 15, 2014, and reported, one and one-half hours later, that it had reached a decision in which four jurors voted for the verdict and two against. The trial judge responded, “Not a valid verdict. Five to one or six to zero. You’ve got to go back.”
The jury resumed deliberations after the foregoing instruction, asked a question (not relevant to the appeal which followed) at 4:15 p.m., and then adjourned shortly thereafter without reaching a verdict. The record shows that at about 4:30 p.m., the trial judge met privately with the jury out of the presence of counsel and asked whether the jury was close. Apparently being informed that they were not close, the judge instructed them to return the following day.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
