Must a judge disclose possible juror ineligibility learned after trial, and does that information disqualify the judge from a new-trial motion?

Plain-English summary

After a criminal jury trial, while a new-trial motion was pending, a judge heard from someone outside the case that a juror might not have lived in the trial jurisdiction. The judge did not know whether the parties had that information. The Commission said he had to tell the parties.

The opinion grounds disclosure in the judge’s duty to conduct fair proceedings and afford parties a full chance to be heard. Withholding possible misconduct unknown to the parties could affect their rights and appear to favor the prevailing side.

The Commission found no disqualification on the given facts. The judge knew only of a possible residency problem, not a proven disputed evidentiary fact; after notice, the parties could present proof and the judge could decide the motion. The opinion left open a different result if personal knowledge of disputed facts or a reasonable impartiality question existed.

In practice

The opinion separates disclosure of a possible juror issue from disqualification to decide the new-trial motion. Its no-recusal conclusion depends on the information remaining unproven and being disclosed.

Common questions

Q: Did the judge have to tell the parties?

A: Yes. The Commission said the parties needed the possible juror information to protect their right to be heard.

Q: Did hearing the report automatically disqualify the judge?

A: No. On the stated facts, the judge lacked personal knowledge that disputed misconduct had occurred.

Q: Who could establish the juror’s legal residence?

A: The opinion leaves that factual issue for the parties’ proof and judicial decision.

Background and rules framework

Canons 1, 3, and 3A(4) supported disclosure and the parties’ right to be heard. Canons 3C and 3C(1)(a) supplied the impartiality and personal-knowledge recusal tests.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 1, 3, 3A(4), 3C, and 3C(1)(a)

Cases:

• Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984), reasonable impartiality question

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-874: Video for a Volunteer Lawyers Program
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-876: Litigant Complaints Against the Judge

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 07-875

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: January 26,2007 ADVISORY OPINION 07-875

1. DUTY TO INFORM PARTIES OF POSSIBLE
   JUROR MISCONDUCT.
2. DISQUALIFICATION DUE TO THE JUDGE'S
   PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
   ISSUES
   I. If, while a motion for new trial is pending,
   a judge learns of possible juror misconduct
   involving the trial of the case, is the judge
   required to disclose the facts to the parties to
   the proceeding? Answer: Yes, under the
   duties imposed in Canon I and Canon 3 ofthe
   Alabama Canons ofJudicial Ethics, a judge is
   required to disclose information of possible
   juror misconduct to the parties.
3. Does the fact that the judge has learned of
   possiblejuror misconduct disqualifyhim from
   hearing the motion for new trial? Answer:
   No, under the facts presented, the judge has
   information only ofpossiblejuror misconduct
   and is not disqualified from deciding the
   matter if, after notice, either or both of the
   parties choose to raise the issue.
   FACTS
   After the conclusion of a criminal jury trial
   and pending a motion for new trial, the trial
   judge learned, through a casual conversation
   with someone unrelated to the case, that one
   of the jurors who served on the jury may not
   have been qualified by residence to serve on
   the jury. The judge is reasonably certain,
   subject to proof, that the juror is a nonresident
   of the trial jurisdiction. The judge does not
   know if the parties are aware of this possible
   disqualification.
   DISCUSSION
   I. During trial proceedings it is the duty of
   the trial judge to conduct the proceedings, to
   maintain order, and to see that the proceedings
   are conducted according to law and
   appropriate procedure. To this end, during the
   proceeding, when possible juror misconduct
   comes to the attention ofthe judge, the judge
   should inform the parties so they may take
   appropriate action if such action is required.
   In carrying out these duties, the judge is
   required by Canon 3 to perform the duties of
   his office impartially and diligently and under
   Canon 3A(4) to accord all parties full right to
   be heard. In addition, the judge is required by
   Canon I to maintain high standards ofconduct
   so that the integrity and independence of the
   judiciary may be protected. Where the judge
   learns that there may have been possible juror
   misconduct in a proceeding that has concluded
   to a verdict and the information is, or may be,
   unknown to the parties, failure to disclose that
   conduct may affect the rights ofparties to the
   proceeding, especially their rights to be heard.
   By failing to disclose the information, the
   judge would be perceived as favoring the
   successful party to the litigation, thereby
   abandoning his duty to maintain the
   impartialityand independence ofthejudiciary.
4. Disqualification is governed by Canon 3C.
   That canon requires disqualification in any
   proceeding where thejudge's "disqualification
   is required by law or his impartiality might
   reasonably bequestioned .... " Pertinentto this
   discussion, disqualification is required where
   a judge has personal knowledge of disputed
   evidentiary facts. Canon 3C(1)(a). Even if
   there is no personal knowledge of such facts,
   the judge is disqualified if "a person of
   ordinary prudence in the judge's position
   knowing all of the facts known to the judge
   find that there is a reasonable basis for
   questioning the judge's impartiality." Matter
   0.[Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350 (Ala 1984).
   ADVISORY OPINION 07-875
   PAGE2
   In the instant case, the judge learned facts
   which led him to believe there may have been
   juror misconduct in the proceeding. The fact
   of such misconduct is yet to be proven, and
   the judge does not have personal knowledge
   that the suspected facts can be shown to be
   true. That issue remains a matter for the
   parties to prove and for the judge to decide
   based on the proofoffered. In addition, under
   these facts, even though the judge is
   reasonably sure that juror may actually live
   outside the county, there is no indication that
   the judge is certain that the current residence
   is the legal residence for juror residency
   purposes. In this instance, the judge does not
   have personal knowledge of a disputed
   evidentiary fact, and it is not reasonable that,
   given the disclosure ofthe information to the
   parties, a person of ordinary prudence would
   question the judge's impartiality.
   REFERENCES
   Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
   1,3, 3A(4), 3C, 3C(1)(A).
   MatterofShefJield. 465 So.2d 350 (Ala 1984).
   This opinion is advisory only and is based on
   the specific facts and questions submitted by
   the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
   to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
   Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
   information, you may contact the Judicial
   Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box 303400,
   Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.:
   (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail:
   ijc((l/alalinc.net.