PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-TRIAL PRACTICE-JUROR AFFIDAVITS

Harrison S. Ed., Paul M.D.

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 49

First Page: 768

Year: 1951

Bluebook Citation: 49 MICH. L. REV. 768 (1951)

Author: Paul M. D. Harrison S Ed: all 8 publications


Abstract

The jury, in an action for trespass, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and thereafter separated after being dismissed by the court. Subsequently, a juror reported to the court that the verdict as returned did not express the actual agreement of the jury. Five days after dismissal the jury was recalled and, upon being polled, unanimously agreed that the verdict as returned did not represent the actual agreement of the jury due to an error in computation. The jury was sent back to the jury room under instructions to refigure the verdict only upon evidence already presented in the prior trial.

A $500 verdict in favor of the plaintiff was thereafter returned. Held, reversed. The trial court acted properly in receiving the statements of the juror that the verdict as returned did not express the actual agreement of the jury, but the verdict should have been set aside and a new trial granted. Kennedy v. Stocker, (Vt.

1950) 70 A. (2d) 587.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.