Hackman v. City of St. Petersburg

632 So. 2d 84, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12503, 1993 WL 504591
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 10, 1993·No. No. 93-03203·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this certiorari proceeding, we review an order permitting a jury interview. We grant relief and quash the order.

The respondent contends that the jury may have overheard statements made by the judge from the bench while the jury was seated in the jury room and also when seated in the jury box. The motion to interview and supporting affidavits are speculative at best. As such, they fail to establish a legally sufficient reason to interview the jurors. See Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97 (Fla.1991) (clarifying State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124 (Fla.1991), and holding that mere possibility of juror misconduct consisting of improper reliance on non-record evidence insufficient to grant interview).

Petition granted.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hackman v. City of St. Petersburg, 632 So. 2d 84, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12503, 1993 WL 504591 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

632 So. 2d 84 (Hackman v. City of St. Petersburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Crawford, Unpublished Decision (1-24-2005)
2005 Ohio 243 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Johnston v. State
841 So. 2d 349 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
Harbour Island Security Co. v. Doe
652 So. 2d 1198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)