Opinion
I.D. No. 002006278
Submitted: June 7, 2001
Decided: July 17, 2001
Robert O'Neill, Esq., John R. Garey, Esq., Martin O' Connor, Esq., Deputy Attorney General 45 The Green, Skyes Building Dover, De 19901
Lloyd A. Schmid, Jr., Esq., Paul Swierzbinski, Esq., Public Defender's office 530 South State Street, Suite 108 Dover, De 19901
Dear Counsel:
Defendant has filed a motion for a new trial based on a casual, street-corner conversation two alternate jurors had with on of his attorneys, Paul Swierzbinski, following the penalty hearing. He asks for an evidentiary hearing to inquire further into the subject matter of the conversation.
According to Mr. Swierzbinski the conversation took place just outside the courthouse following the Court's receipt of a ten to two death recommendation from the jury. He says that one of the alternates said the she was "sorry for what had happened" and they both went on to offer their opinions and some observations about the conduct of the other jurors. The Court has received no report, directly or indirectly, from any juror, regular or alternate, regarding any irregular conduct by the jury.
The law in this State regarding the impeachment of a jury verdict is clear, consistent and well developed. It will not be repeated at length here. A jury verdict may be impeached only by evidence of extrinsic influences. It may not be impeached by evidence of intrinsic influences, i.e., how the jury conducted its deliberations or the mental processes of any individual juror. Sheeran v. State, Del. Supr. 526 A2 886, 894-897 (1987); Massey v. State, Del. Supr. 541 A2 1254 (1988).
The Statements of the alternate jurors do not point to any extrinsic influence being exerted on the jury and it would be pointless to inquire further. Having presided over the trial of the defendant, the Court will not now place the jury on trial.
The motion is Denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.