Erstgaard v. Beard, 310 Or 486 (1990).
Case involving alleged juror misconduct during jury selection and deliberations. Juror failed to disclose in voir dire that the defendant physician had provided life-saving care to the juror’s relative after attorney for the plaintiff learned that the juror had been treated briefly by the defendant physician and asked if there was anything else the juror felt should be discussed. During deliberations the same juror was allegedly biased for the defendant physician, argued a verdict against the physician would damage the physician’s reputation, and relayed facts surrounding the care the physician provided to the juror’s relative. The trial court, relying in part on affidavits submitted by other jurors, granted a new trial for the plaintiff after the jury found for the defendant physician.
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the conduct of the juror, however reprehensible, did not provide a sufficient basis for granting a new trial based on juror misconduct and reversed. The Supreme Court first noted the open-ended question posed during voir dire was similar to questions asked by attorneys in nearly every case and was not specific enough to require a more forthcoming response from the juror. The Supreme Court indicated it was proper for the trial court to consider juror affidavits in deciding whether juror misconduct had occurred, with the caveat that a court could not consider evidence regarding the mental process used by jurors in reaching a verdict.
Citing the unofficial commentary to OEC 606, the Supreme Court reiterated the general rule that important policy reasons, such as finality of verdicts and protection of jurors from harassment, strongly favor safeguarding jury verdicts from attack based on statements made by jurors during deliberations and that "only the clearest kinds of juror misconduct" warrant setting aside a verdict. Improper argument by a juror, the Court noted, had never been the basis of granting a new trial. Instead, the limited cases finding improper conduct all involved situations in which a juror imparted "special knowledge" to other jurors regarding a disputed fact in the case. The juror in this case had not relayed new information to the other jurors during deliberations, and there was therefore not sufficient improper juror misconduct for a new trial to be ordered.
JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
JURISDICTION