Churchill v. Alpena Circuit Judge

• Decision Date: 29 April 1885
• Citation: 23 N.W. 211,56 Mich. 536
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CHURCHILL v. ALPENA CIRCUIT JUDGE.

23 N.W. 211

56 Mich. 536

CHURCHILL v. ALPENA CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 29, 1885

Mandamus.

Turnbull Shields & Dafoe, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, J.

Relators apply for a mandamus to compel respondent to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial for misconduct of a jury after retiring to consider their verdict. The jury were charged in the latter part of the day, and were out all night. While out, they sent the bailiff in charge for beer, of which he brought and they consumed several bottles. In the morning the court, without objection from counsel, allowed them to go under charge of an officer to get breakfast at a hotel, and gave them proper cautions against communicating with others. But it appears from admitted facts that while in the hotel they conversed with persons there, and made it known that they stood ten to two, and in the dining-room openly discussed that fact in such a way as to indicate their position. They drank in the bar-room whisky and other liquors two or three times, at the invitation of the landlord and of each other. One of the jury had a conversation with the stenographer, and asked him how the sentiment was outside and was told it was that the jury would disagree or find for the plaintiff. He was also informed how the jury stood, and some jocular remarks passed on the subject. The jurors were where they could converse freely with third persons during the time they were absent from their jury-room, and did talk with them. They rendered a verdict an hour or two after they came back.

Upon these undisputed facts before him on the motion the circuit judge declined to order a new trial, on the ground that he had become satisfied the jury had not been influenced in their action by anything which had occurred, and that their verdict was right and just. He subsequently made inquiry in part by means of some affidavits not used on the motion which he returned with the order to show cause as a further support to his decision, but which we declined to receive as ex parte and foreign to the inquiry as it stood for his decision and on this hearing.

The courts have exercised some discretionary power in dealing with conduct of juries while not in improper communication with other persons, and have not always disturbed verdicts for misconduct which were the result of the uninfluenced action of the jurors alone. But when juries get into communication with strangers the case is different, and cannot be dealt with so easily.

The rule of the common law was so strict that jurors, during their consultation, were required to be kept, not only secluded, but fasting. It is not now required that they shall be deprived of food; but the whole object of a jury trial would be subverted if they can be allowed to communicate with other persons, unless for some purpose of necessity, and to indulge in social intercourse or in drinking among them. Any course which would expose them to the danger of influence outside of the jury-room is very clearly illegal. The circuit judge, recognizing this, assumed, nevertheless, to inquire whether any injury had actually resulted; and he also suggests that, whether he was right or not in this, the relators should be precluded from redress here, because they have taken out a writ of error with a bill of exceptions, and filed a stay-bond.

If the grounds for relief were such as could be set out in a bill of exceptions, there would probably be no need of this application. But a bill of exceptions in a civil case can...