Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ting his former testimony that the man who made the slashing gesture was not on the jury. Curtis has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and jurors cannot be called to testify to matters that inhere to the verdict under section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...ermine exactly what type of information will be elicited from the jurors, because Florida's Evidence Code, like that of many other jurisdictions, absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...m." Velsor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 329 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 336 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1976). However, jurors are allowed to testify about "overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict." § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...These conclusions rested in part on the following relevant portion of Florida's Evidence Code: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...that a verdict cannot be subsequently impeached by conduct which inheres in the verdict and relates to the jury's deliberations." Mitchell v. State, 527 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 404, 102 L.Ed.2d 392 (1988); accord § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...of the crime. [2] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). [5] Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.

...s by jurors. Any effort to devise such a test is complicated by the fact that Florida's Evidence Code, like that of many other jurisdictions, absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors. [8] § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...m." Velsor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 329 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 336 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1976). However, jurors are allowed to testify about "overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict." § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...(1987) (Law Revision Council Note — 1976) (emphasis added). See Maler ex rel. Maler v. Baptist Hosp., 559 So.2d 1157, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (discussing application of this principle). Obviously, any test that required proof or disproof that jurors actually were prejudiced would quickly run afoul of section 90.607(2)(b)....

...We agree with the test formulated by the Fifth Circuit and adopted by the Eleventh, finding that it best comports with both Florida law and the constitutional rights of defendants. This rule avoids the problems of a test that demands inquiry into the thought processes of jurors — a practice forbidden by section 90.607(2)(b) of the Florida Evidence Code....

...als that jurors did not consult, Trotter, especially when those materials are irrelevant to the factual and legal issues. Beard. We commend the trial court for seeing that jurors were not questioned regarding their mental processes and thoughts. See § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...The trial court stated that "one of the jurors had contraband in the juryroom [during] the penalty phase." However, the resolution of this case would be the same whether or not Kevilly was present during deliberations. [3] We note that the questions posed to the juror were constrained by the requirements of section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), which prohibit inquiry into jurors' thought processes....

...1st DCA 1989), review denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 1989). The Doutre court, however, clearly erred in this holding. The Doutre court permitted an improper inquiry into the thought processes of jurors and then based its finding on this inadmissible evidence. See § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...4th DCA) (mem.) (Downey, C.J., & Cross, J., specially concurring), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1978). [8] The statute provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...Sireci also claims reversible error in the trial court's refusal to poll the jurors concerning their use of the knowledge of the prior death sentence. We note only that the Evidence Code prohibits judicial inquiry into the emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...A juror is not competent to testify about matters inhering in the verdict, such as jurors' emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs. See Baptist Hosp. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1991); State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124, 128 (Fla.1991); see also § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...discovered evidence establishes that execution by electrocution is cruel or unusual punishment. [3] Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993). [4] The woman purportedly called Mr. Smith in reference to one of his clients, to whom she was related. [5] Section 90.607(2)(b) provides: (b) Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment....

...the defense such that, without the errors, there is a reasonable probability that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have been different.'"). [14] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [15] § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...The Florida Evidence Code codifies the sanctity of the jury verdict by providing that "[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment." § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...ides that any inquiry into matters that "inhere in the verdict" is prohibited: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...yed no part in the verdict. [3] The trial court clearly erred by asking the jurors whether the expressed concern factored into their decision-making process and by relying on their assurances as a basis for denying Wilding's motion for mistrial. See § 90.607(2)(b), Fla.Stat....

...sanctity of the jury verdict by providing that `[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.'" 717 So.2d at 502 (quoting § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...Hamilton, 574 So.2d at 129 (quoting United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d at 869 (alteration in original)). [3] In applying this test, courts must take into account Florida's Evidence Code which forbids any judicial inquiry into the emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...In addition, the trial judge compounded the error when she questioned jurors about the article. Although it was appropriate to conduct a hearing, the trial court should not have asked two jurors how the article affected their decision-making process. See § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...State, 569 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1991). [2] Richard Lacayo, Law: Whose Trial Is It Anyway? Defense Lawyers Raise Hackles by Attacking Victims and Prosecutors, Time, May 25, 1987, at 62. [3] Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment....

...idence and the testimony of a juror at Songer's trial that she believed she could only consider the statutorily enumerated mitigating factors. Regarding the testimony of the juror, the trial judge properly determined that it was not admissible under section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment....

...view, when the jurors informed the court they feared retribution from Miles. "Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment." § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...res in the verdict. 854 So.2d at 1240; see, e.g., McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 123 So.2d 339, 344 (Fla. 1959); Russ v. State, 95 So.2d 594, 600 (Fla. 1957). Moreover, a juror is not competent to testify about matters which inhere in the verdict. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...ns, and scope of the interview. Id. The motion was timely in this case although the court’s ruling was delayed by the plaintiffs death. The Florida Evidence Code prohibits inquiry of a juror regarding any matter which “inheres in the verdict.” § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...Therefore, the courts have strictly limited the situations where interviews of jurors are allowed. See Devoney v. State, 717 So.2d 501 (Fla.1998) (" Devoney II "). In Devoney II, the supreme court held that a juror may not be asked about any matter that "inheres in the verdict." Id. at 502 (quoting section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993))....

...Allstate Insurance Company, 650 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1995), reaffirmed the holding in its Maler decision. The court found the making of racial jokes and racially biased statements by jurors to each other to be overt acts of misconduct rather than misconduct which inheres in the verdict. Thus, section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), prohibiting judicial inquiry into matters which essentially inhere in the verdict, is not violated by an inquiry of this nature....

...his own behalf. This same juror made a statement to the effect that an innocent man would have testified at trial. Appellant claims that these two allegations warrant a court order authorizing defense counsel to interview the jurors or a new trial. Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), states that "[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict ..., a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict....

...ermine exactly what type of information will be elicited from the jurors, because Florida's Evidence Code, like that of many other jurisdictions, absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...." Velsor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 329 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2nd DCA), cert. dismissed, 336 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1976). However, jurors are allowed to testify about "overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict." § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...If this burden is met, the defendant will be entitled to a new trial unless the state can show that the misconduct was harmless. Baptist Hosp.; Miles. A juror interview is not permitted regarding inquiry into any matter that inheres in the verdict and relates to the jury's deliberations. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...2002) (affirming denial of mistrial where three jurors discussed the case during a break from deliberations because “no nonjuror participated in the discussion, there was no indication that the jurors were otherwise improperly discussing 1Similarly, section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes, does not permit inquiry into any matter which inheres in the verdict. 6 extraneous evidence, and the discussion took place during a short break from ongoing deliberations”); United States v....

...st petition proceeding and cannot be considered in the instant petition. Under both federal and state law, a juror cannot testify as to matters which were inherent in the deliberative process and which led to a verdict. Fed.R.Evid. 606(b); Fla.Stat. § 90.607(2)(b) (1983)....

...inhere in the verdict and relate to the jury’s deliberations. See Duckett v. State, 918 So.2d 224 , 231 n. 7 (Fla.2005); Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1240 (Fla.2003); Johnson v. State, 593 So.2d 206, 210 (Fla.1992). Codifying this principle, section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that “[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.” As interpreted by this Court, section 90.607(2)(b) “absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental process, or mistaken beliefs of jurors.” Baptist Hosp....

...en a scintilla of evidence suggesting misconduct or malfeasance during deliberations. Because the thoughts expressed by these jurors are not matters external to the verdict and relate to topics about which they are ultimately incompetent to testify, section 90.607(2)(b) renders these juror affidavits inadmissible, and they cannot be classified as newly discovered evidence....

than 25% less than a prior offer of judgment. Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), forbids any

..., when the jurors informed the court they feared retribution from Miles. “Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.” § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

questioning of the juror must be consistent with section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2020), which provides:

...The concept of inherency has long been a feature of Florida law 2 and has been codified in Florida’s evidence code: “Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.” § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...As explained above, the case law from the supreme court contradicts this observation. -8- The law does not permit inquiry into the "emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors." Maler, 579 So. 2d at 99; see also Hamilton, 574 So. 2d at 128 (citing section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), of the Florida Evidence Code as the basis for this prohibition).9 The same is true regarding the discussions about how the verdict might impact Dowd's son. The trial court also correctly...

...oceedings and require a new trial." See Crain, 78 So. 3d at 1045. In Johnson, the supreme court described comments similar to those alleged in this case as improper but not prejudicial because they were "simply a 9 Section 90.607(2)(b) provides that "[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment." This evidentiary rule codifies the Iowa rule iteration of the common law no-impeachment rule....

v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124, 128 (Fla.1991), Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes, forbids absolutely

mistaken beliefs.” Martin, slip op. at 21 (quoting § 90.607(2)(b) and then quoting Marshall v. State, 854

...State, 717 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla.1998). A juror is not competent to testify about matters inhering in the verdict, such as jurors’ emotions, mental processes, mistaken beliefs, or understanding of the applicable law, and these matters cannot be used to impugn a verdict. § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

than 25% less than a prior offer of judgment. Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), forbids any

...*670 Once the movant is granted the interview, he “must establish actual juror misconduct.” Id. at 100 n. 1. During the interview, however, the juror may not testify “as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.” § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...well. Juror interviews are not permitted with respect to any matter that inheres to the verdict and relates to jury deliberations. See Aragon v. State, 858 So.2d 584, 587-88 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Walters v. State, 786 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), says specifically: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent, to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment....

...Five years ago, in State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124 (Fla.1991), the court said: “Florida’s Evidence Code, like that of many other jurisdictions, absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors, [f.o.] § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...If assent to a verdict in the privacy of the deliberation room has been procured by acts of foul language or verbal aggression, the sanctuary for the juror is the courtroom — the one place where the juror can reveal such improper conduct with impunity and protection. REVERSED. DELL and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. . § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...on or proceeding is subject to all the provisions of this chapter relating to witnesses.” § 90.606(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). The trial judge in this case was neither qualified to act as an interpreter in a criminal case nor competent to testify. See § 90.607(1)(a), Fla....

...Receipt of non-record information concerning the amount of the prior verdict is an overt act “‘which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.’” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1991) (quoting § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...ablishes that this claim involves matters that essentially inhere in the verdict itself, and cannot serve as a basis for attacking its validity. Devoney v. State, 717 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1998); Mitchell v. State, 527 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1998). See also § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...timony is properly in a position to know). Second, Claimant was denied any opportunity to confront the non-record evidence and to attempt to refute it. Our conclusion is shaped by the public policy underlying the previously cited case law as well as section 90.607(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides that (subject to an exception inapplicable here) “the judge presiding at the trial of an action is not competent to testify as a witness in that trial.” Cf....

...The trial court conducted a limited evidentiary hearing on the juror misconduct issue after prohibiting the parties from questioning the juror on anything that inhered in the verdict itself. See Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235,1240 (Fla.2003); Devoney, 717 So.2d at 502 ; Hamilton, 574 So.2d at 128 ; see also § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

...While not reversible error, we note that this inquiry was improper. The Florida Evidence Code forbids any judicial inquiry into “emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors.” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1991) (citing § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987)). Section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), provides that “[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.” The trial court’s inquiry here inhered in the verdict and was thus improper....

...However, “Florida’s Evidence Code . . . absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors.” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1991) (citation omitted); see also § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat....

...no reasonable possibility that the [unauthorized] books affected the verdict.” Id. at 129 . In Hamilton , the court recognized the difficulty in formulating a precise test to determine the effect of unauthorized material on the verdict in light of section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that “[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.” Whil...

...ly forbids any judicial inquiry into emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors,” it does not preclude inquiry about “overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.” Id. at 128 (citing § 90.607(2)(b), Fla....

(emphasis added) (citing § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987)). Indeed, section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes