Nilgün Aykent Zahour and SM JUROR analyze the juror misconduct case of Larkin v. George, 2016 IL App (1st) 152209, 65 N.E.3d 1002 where the plaintiff's request to examine jurors under oath to prove juror misconduct was denied. #JurorMisconduct

1. SM JUROR presents our analysis of:
Larkin v. George, 2016 IL App (1st) 152209, 65 N.E.3d 1002.
Plaintiff’s request to examine each juror under oath to
prove juror misconduct was denied.

2. Larkin v. George, 2016 IL App (1st) 152209, 65
N.E.3d 1002.

3. Copyright 2017 – SM JUROR. All rights reserved.
www.smjuror.com

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. Facts:
During the trial of this automobile accident case, plaintiff
was facing pending criminal charges in both Illinois and
Indiana, where his case was “newsworthy in multiple
media outlets.” Larkin v. George, 2016 IL App (1st) 152209,
¶ 24, 65 N.E.3d 1002, 1008. After less than forty minutes,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, and
no juror wanted to talk to the attorneys after trial. Plaintiff
filed a post-trial motion arguing the jurors reached a
unanimous verdict against him based on the extrinsic
evidence of his pending criminal charges, further arguing that the trial court failed to
timely instruct the juror not to engage in their own independent investigation. Plaintiff’s
motion was denied because there was no evidence of any independent investigation by
any juror. On appeal, plaintiff requested that the case also be remanded to
the circuit court for further examination of the jurors under oath.

6. A lack of evidence to support the juror misconduct claim
There was no evidence of any independent investigation by the jurors.
Without supporting evidence, plaintiff’s argument becomes purely speculative.

7. Holding:
The Appellate Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of
plaintiff’s post-trial motion finding that plaintiff’s argument was purely speculative
because there was no evidence of any independent investigation by a juror. The
record demonstrated that the trial court did instruct the jurors not to discuss the
case with anyone or do any internet research. Additionally, after being questioned
during the jury selection process, every juror indicated that they had no prior
knowledge of the case or association with the parties. Because there was no
evidence of juror misconduct, the request to examine the jurors under oath was
also denied. Larkin v. George, 2016 IL App (1st) 152209, ¶ 24, 65 N.E.3d 1002,
1008–09.

8. 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

9. 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