Holden v. Porter
| Decision Date | 14 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 10134.,10134. |
| Citation | 405 F.2d 878 |
| Parties | Wm. M. HOLDEN, Appellant, v. Billy D. PORTER, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Joel A. Sterrett, Topeka, Kan. (Robert E. Russell and F. G. Manzanares, Topeka, Kan., were with him on the brief) for appellant.
Harold E. Doherty, Topeka, Kan. (James E. Benfer, Lawrence J. Nelson, Topeka, Kan., and Gene Sinor were with him on the brief) for appellee.
Before LEWIS, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident involving appellant as the driver of the car and appellee as a passenger therein. The accident occurred in Luxemburg while both parties were members of the United States Air Force and resulted in severe injuries to appellee. The issues of appellant's negligence and the damages to appellee were tried to a jury in the District of Kansas and resulted in a verdict and judgment for $50,000 in favor of appellee.
By way of motion for new trial appellant pleaded that the jury was guilty of misconduct in arriving at its verdict. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and allowed four jurors to testify, in substance, that during their deliberation a juror had stated that all military personnel in foreign service carried liability insurance; that another juror stated that they were not interested in that; and each juror witness testified that the existence or non-existence of insurance had no influence upon his or her determination of a just verdict. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and this appeal followed.
The motion was properly denied. The incident complained of constituted no misconduct in fact and was proved by totally incompetent evidence in law. The appellant made no claim that the jury had been subjected to an extraneous and improper influence and in such case the "rule is well established in this circuit that the evidence of jurors is not admissible to impeach their verdict." Lohr v. Tittle, 10 Cir., 275 F.2d 662, and cases cited. And since this case apparently presents a proceeding in direct defiance to the reasons for such rule we repeat the oft-quoted statement in McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267-268, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.
...483 U.S. 107, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); United States v. Miller, 806 F.2d 223, 225 n. 2 (10th Cir.1986); Holden v. Porter, 405 F.2d 878, 879 (10th Cir.1969). 40 Blue Cross made several motions for a mistrial during the jury's deliberations. In its third such motion, made four da......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Nicholas
...McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 269, 35 S.Ct. 783, 785, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915); speculation as to insurance coverage, Holden v. Porter, 405 F.2d 878 (10th Cir.1969), Farmers Coop. Elev. Ass'n v. Strand, 382 F.2d 224, 230 (8th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1014, 88 S.Ct. 589, 19 L.Ed.2d 6......
-
Rios v. Danuser Mach. Co., Inc.
...See Shillcutt v. Gagnon, 827 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir.1987); Martinez v. Food City, Inc., 658 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1981); see also Holden v. Porter, 405 F.2d 878 (10th Cir.1969); State v. Shillcutt, 119 Wis.2d 788, 350 N.W.2d 686 (1984). Similarly, under the rule a court may not consider a juror's a......
-
U.S. v. Day
...jury verdict. Fed.R.Evid., Rule 606(b), 28 U.S.C.A.; Hyde v. United, 225 U.S. 347, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912); Holden v. Porter, 405 F.2d 878 (10th Cir.1969). The purpose behind Rule 606(b) is to insure that jurors will decide cases only on the basis of the evidence admitted. The Re......