Supreme Court rules federal judges have inherent power to recall discharged jurors to correct error
A federal judge has the inherent power to recall a discharged jury for further deliberations in a civil case after identifying an error in the judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-2 opinion.
The majority opinion (PDF) by Justice Sonia Sotomayor cautioned that judges’ authority in such situations “is limited in duration and scope” because of the possibility that jurors could be tainted after their discharge.
Sotomayor said courts considering a juror recall should take into account how much time has elapsed between discharge and recall, whether the jurors spoke to anyone about the case after discharge, the reaction to the verdict by courtroom spectators, and whether jurors were exposed to information about the case on the internet or their smartphones.
Sotomayor upheld the recall of jurors in a diversity trial stemming from a Montana car accident in which both sides had stipulated to about $10,000 in damages, but the injured plaintiff, Rocky Dietz, wanted more. Jurors returned a verdict for Dietz but awarded no damages, though they were obligated to return a verdict for at least the stipulated amount.
A few minutes after discharging the jurors, the trial judge stopped jurors from leaving the courthouse, reassembled them and asked them if they had spoken about the case. The jurors said they had not. The judge told them of their mistake and ordered them to return the next day to renew deliberations. Jurors awarded $15,000.
Dietz had sought a retrial. He argued that jurors once discharged could no longer be brought back together again. Sotomayor disagreed. “We reject this ‘Humpty Dumpty’ theory of the jury,” she said.
Sotomayor cited opinions holding that district courts have the inherent authority to manage their courtrooms and dockets to resolve cases efficiently and expeditiously. Recalling a jury, rather than ordering a new trial, can save time and litigation expenses, she said.
In the Dietz case, there was no abuse of discretion in the juror recall, Sotomayor said. The jury was out only a few minutes and jurors did not speak to anyone about the case after their discharge. Also there was no indication that the verdict generated any kind of emotional reaction or that jurors had researched the case on their cellphones after discharge.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
