In Tenev v. Thurston, No. 2D14-4566, 2016 WL 886280, at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 9, 2016), the trial court instructed the jury that they were not to discuss the case with anyone and were not to have any conversations with the witnesses and attorneys in the case. Prior to trial, Tenev, the Defendant’s attorney, informed the trial court that she wanted to strike a juror for cause because the juror was Facebook friends with one of the Defendant’s employees. When asked how she learned of this information, Tenev provided the court with three different answers. However, there was no indication that Tenev learned this information through contact with a juror.

Both parties initially agreed that the court would strike the juror and proceed with the alternate juror. However, the Plaintiff requested that the court inquire of the Defendant’s wife and the juror. The juror indicated that she did not have any contact with any party or attorney involved in the case. The Defendant’s wife stated that she found the jury list, researched the jurors on the internet, and sent Tenev a text informing her of the relationship between the juror and the Defendant’s employee and asking her to strike the juror. Tenev responded by asking for the name of the juror.

The Plaintiff moved for mistrial arguing that the Defendant’s wife and Tenev attempted to make improper contact with one of the jurors. Tenev argued that a mistrial was not necessary because there was no evidence of any improper contact. The trial court found that Tenev acted in bad faith and granted a mistrial. Yet, the trial court did not make a finding that Tenev had any improper contact with a juror or that the trial could not proceed with the remaining panel of jurors. The Plaintiff also moved for sanctions against Tenev. The trial court granted the motion and ordered Tenev to pay for the Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs for preparation and attendance at trial and the prosecution of their motion for sanctions. Tenev appealed.

On appeal, the Court held that the trial court’s finding lacked the high degree of specificity required to support an imposition of sanctions. The Court recognized that Tenev violated her oath as an attorney by not being honest with the trial court and providing three different responses. However, this dishonesty with the court did not adversely impact the proceedings and did not result in the Plaintiff incurring additional fees and costs. Further, Tenev’s dishonesty about the juror research did not warrant a mistrial. Attorneys are not prohibited from researching jurors so long as there is no improper contact with the jurors.

If you have any questions about this case or would like to refer an appellate matter, please contact our appellate attorneys.