Supreme Court defines limits for jury misconduct

Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 | 9:53 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that it is not misconduct if a juror uses his or her specialized knowledge in reaching a verdict.

Chief Justice Deborah Agosti said in the split decision issued Friday: "A juror who has specialized knowledge or expertise may convey their opinion based upon such knowledge to fellow jurors."

But the court called it misconduct when a juror gathers outside information from a textbook or research during the trial and conveys it to other jurors.

The court, in a 4-3 decision, overturned the sexual assault conviction of Adam R. Meyer and ordered a new trial. Meyer was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years for an attack on his estranged wife, Catrina, in October 1999 in Reno.

In doing so, it clarified the standard on which to determine jury misconduct. One justice said the decision will mean fewer claims of jury misconduct in the future.

An issue at the trial was the source of small bruises, marks or bumps on the scalp of the victim. The prosecution said they were caused by the attack. Meyer contended they were caused by the woman's medication Accutane.

After the trial, defense lawyers gathered an affidavit from one juror who was a nurse who told other jurors that the small bumps were similar to those she had observed in domestic violence hair-pulling situations.

Agosti said: "Analysis of the evidence by a juror with professional expertise does not fall squarely within the prohibitions against considering facts or evidence not in the record."

But another juror who worked in a dermatologist's office consulted a "Physician's Desk Reference" on the side effects of Accutane and then advised the jury it causes easy bruising in only 1 percent of the population.

Agosti wrote: "This clearly amounted to an extraneous influence upon the jury and the district court correctly concluded that the second juror's actions constituted misconduct." However, the district judge upheld the jury's decision.

Justices Bob Rose and Myron Leavitt wrote concurring opinions, saying the verdict should have been overturned also because there was discussion by the jury of the potential penalty. One juror was holding out against a guilty verdict. But when she was told by a fellow juror that the sentence would only be a few years, she agreed to the guilty verdict.

The minimum penalty for the offense is 10 years.

Justice Bill Maupin wrote a concurring opinion that said the decision clarifying the standard on jury misconduct should reduce the number of post- trial attacks on jury verdict.

He said those with specialized knowledge such as a doctor, lawyer or engineer, can be challenged for cause in the seating of the jury. He said "parties that leave such jurors in place during jury selection take their chances with the use of specialized knowledge."

Dissenting were Justices Nancy Becker, Miriam Shearing and retired Justice Cliff Young, who argued the evidence of sexual assault was substantial. Becker, who wrote the dissent, said "none of Meyer's experts attributed Catrina's bruising to Accutane. "

Becker said the state produced expert testimony indicating the bruising was not caused by the side effects of Accutane. She wrote that the importance of the juror consulting the physician's handbook was diminished when compared with the other significant injuries Catrina suffered.

In another ruling Friday, the court rejected the appeal of Rafael Ibarra Arreola, convicted in 1992 in Las Vegas of three counts of sexual assault on an 11-year-old girl who became pregnant and aborted the fetus.

The court said Ibarra failed to bring his post-conviction writ petition within the required deadline. And it rejected his argument that challenged the reliability of DNA evidence.