The 9th District Court of Appeals believes the answer is no.
In the case Brody v. SCR-SCP, Inc., (2007 - Ohio - 1477, March 30, 2007), the 9th District ruled that a judge’s ex parte communications with a juror amounted to prejudicial error and overturned the defense verdict which was arrived at after a two week trial. This case was an intentional employment tort involving the death of one of the defendant’s employees.
According to the opinion, after the judgment was handed down, a newspaper article ran in which a juror admitted to have an ex parte conversation with judge while the jury was deliberating. The juror complained of being deadlocked and was told by the judge that it would be acceptable if the jury wanted to issue an admonishment to a party in its decision. The jury then issued a defense verdict and wrote that “We agree that the intent was not in place, but that negligence existed. We add this note to encourage the defendant to change or enhance their policy or training.”
Apparently, record of this conversation was never made by the Court.
Upon reading the article in the newspaper, the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was then set down for hearing. The day before the hearing was to have been had, the court cancelled it and denied the motion without explanation. An appeal was taken.
The 9th District overturned the judgment unanimously and has remanded it for a new trial.
To read the full opinion, click here.
