A juror’s momentary chat with a medical expert following testimony was not reason enough for a mistrial, or to disturb the $425,000 verdict ultimately rendered in the case, a New Jersey appeals court said.
“Despite interaction between juror and witness, a new trial is not necessary in every instance where it appears that an individual juror has been exposed to outside influence,” the Appellate Division said Dec. 31 in Lukenda v. Grunberg, noting that the defendant failed to press for an inquiry into whether the episode influenced other jury members.
This content has been archived.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]
