Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Juror Misconduct - A juror's nondisclosure of material information during voir dire: Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017)

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 12 Ad

Juror Misconduct - A juror's nondisclosure of material information during voir dire: Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017)

Download to read offline

Nilgün Aykent Zahour and SM JUROR analyze the case of Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017) where a juror's nondisclosure of material information during voir dire, when specifically questioned, led to a mistrial based on juror misconduct. #JurorMisconduct

Nilgün Aykent Zahour and SM JUROR analyze the case of Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017) where a juror's nondisclosure of material information during voir dire, when specifically questioned, led to a mistrial based on juror misconduct. #JurorMisconduct

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Juror Misconduct - A juror's nondisclosure of material information during voir dire: Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017)

  1. 1. SM JUROR presents our analysis of: Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). A juror’s nondisclosure of material information, while specifically questioned during voir dire, leads to mistrial.
  2. 2. Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).
  3. 3. Copyright 2017 – SM JUROR. All rights reserved. www.smjuror.com
  4. 4. This presentation is brought to you by Nilgün Aykent Zahour, Esq. Nilgün Aykent Zahour is the President and Founding Attorney of SM JUROR. With over twenty-eight years of litigation experience, her passion is to help attorneys identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct issues at trial and on appeal in this constantly evolving area of the law. Don’t let juror misconduct taint your verdict, especially when a juror uses social media or the internet. You can view Nilgün’s education and background on the SM JUROR website by clicking here and also click/view her LinkedIn profile. Click on her latest article “The Verdict is In: Juries, Misconduct and Social Media”. Because the only evidence you want the jury to consider … is in the courtroom. Use SM JUROR. LINKS ARE CLICKABLE ON PC DESKTOPS AND SOME MOBILE PHONES
  5. 5. Facts: Kogan, a law enforcement officer, sued his employer, Scott Israel as Sheriff of Broward County (“BSO”), under the “Whistle-Blower’s Act”, claiming he was demoted from homicide detective to road patrol deputy after reporting an instance of excessive force by the police and cooperating with the investigation. The jury found in his favor. Following the verdict, BSO moved for a new trial claiming juror misconduct, asserting that after the verdict, “it learned that one of the jurors, Juror 3, failed to disclose that her son had been arrested despite being asked about her family's arrest history on the juror questionnaire.” Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581, at *2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the juror misconduct issue, examining the voir dire transcript, and interviewing Juror 3, the trial court granted BSO’s motion for new trial and Kogan appealed. Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
  6. 6. Standard of review for juror concealment of information at voir dire: “The standard of review of a trial court's order granting a new trial because of juror concealment of information is abuse of discretion. If reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court's ruling, then the abuse of discretion standard has not been met.” Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581, at *2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
  7. 7. Three Part Test to Determine Whether a Juror’s Nondisclosure of Information During Voir Dire Warrants a New Trial: 1. The complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case; 2. The juror concealed the information during questioning; and 3. The failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party's lack of diligence. Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581, at *2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR, Inc.
  8. 8. What is the Materiality of the Nondisclosure? “Courts evaluate materiality based on the ‘circumstances of each case’ using the following test: ‘Nondisclosure is considered material if it is substantial and important so that if the facts were known, the [moving party] may have been influenced to peremptorily challenge the juror from the jury.’” Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581, at *2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
  9. 9. Juror 3’s Nondisclosure of Her Son’s Arrests was Material The court ruled that Juror 3's nondisclosure was material because: • BSO’s focus of voir dire was “to inquire into and learn of the prospective jurors' feelings toward law enforcement.” Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15-1848, 2017 WL 362581, at *3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). • BSO sought “information regarding any bad experiences the prospective jurors may have had with law enforcement, including: (1) arrests; (2) whether any were a victim of a crime; and (3) whether any had friends or family members who were or are employed in law enforcement.” Id. • “Juror No. 3's failure to disclose her son's arrests prevented [BSO] from inquiring into the circumstances of the arrests and her feelings towards law enforcement as a result of these arrests. In fact, Juror No. 3's nondisclosure led [BSO] to believe that Juror No. 3 harbored no negative feelings toward law enforcement.” Id. • Juror 3 sat through 3 hours of voir dire where both sides asked potential jurors about bad experiences with law enforcement, but failed to mention her son’s two arrests. Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
  10. 10. Holding: “The court's findings are supported by the record, which establishes that almost every question posed during voir dire by either side concerned law enforcement in some shape or form. When viewed in its entirety, it is clear that the parties' main goal during voir dire was to decipher whether any of the panel members held biases towards law enforcement. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person could certainly take the view that Juror 3 failed to disclose material information. Accordingly, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial.” Kogan v. Israel, No. 4D15- 1848, 2017 WL 362581, at *3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017). Copyright 2017 - SM JUROR
  11. 11. Like what you see? Want more? to sign up for our free SM JUROR newsletter, filled with information about new juror misconduct cases, short webinars, or other helpful resources to help you identify, preserve and advance juror misconduct cases at trial and on appeal. Click here This is a clickable link Links are clickable on PC desktops and some mobile phones
  12. 12. We want to connect with you. Connect with SM JUROR by clicking on your favorite social media networks below: The phones above are clickable links on PC desktops and some mobile phones

×