Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a trial court must conduct some form of preliminary inquiry when presented with information indicating possible juror misconduct or partiality. The court concluded that the trial court improperly refused to investigate the defendant’s specific allegation that a juror had spoken with a member of the victim’s family. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a trial court must conduct a preliminary inquiry when presented with information tending to indicate the possibility of juror misconduct or partiality.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by summarily rejecting Roman's specific allegation that a juror had spoken with a member of the victim's family without seeking additional information.
Holdings
- A trial court is required to conduct some type of on-the-record preliminary inquiry whenever it is presented with information tending to indicate the possibility of juror misconduct or partiality. Although the form and scope of the inquiry are within the trial court's discretion, the court may not decline to conduct any inquiry.
- The trial court improperly declined to conduct the requisite inquiry because Roman's allegation was neither facially incredible nor clearly unsupportable, and the court refused to obtain further facts from Roman or defense counsel.
Key quotations
“To ensure that the jury will decide the case free from external influences that might interfere with the exercise of deliberate and unbiased judgment ... a trial court is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry, on the record, whenever it is presented with information tending to indicate the possibility of juror misconduct or partiality.” (726)
“Furthermore, we [have] determined that [although the form and scope of such an inquiry he within a trial court’s discretion, the court must conduct some type of inquiry in response to allegations ofjur[or] misconduct.” (727)
“Inasmuch as the trial court failed to explore the substance of the defendant’s allegation, the record is insufficient for a determination of whether the defendant’s right to a trial by an impartial jury was compromised.” (728)
Factual background
Roman and his live-in girlfriend hosted a holiday party at their East Hartford home. After Roman returned at approximately 3 a.m., he argued with his girlfriend and, after consuming alcohol and cocaine, shot her several times and repeatedly shot Israel Arroyo, who died from his wounds. At the sentencing hearing, Roman alleged that a juror had spoken with the victim's family and represented that witnesses and newly retained counsel were available to substantiate juror misconduct.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Roman of murder, first-degree assault, criminal possession of a pistol, and risk of injury to a child. The trial court rendered judgment and sentenced him to a total effective term of eighty years. The Appellate Court affirmed, rejecting his claim that the trial court improperly refused to conduct a preliminary inquiry into alleged juror misconduct. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed as to its disposition of Roman's juror-misconduct claim. The case was remanded to the Appellate Court with direction to remand it to the trial court for further proceedings according to law, including a fair opportunity for Roman to substantiate his claim. The Appellate Court's judgment was affirmed in all other respects.