Powell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
1995 WL 16927, 652 So.2d 354 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Overt acts of racial bias exhibited by jurors during deliberations constitute juror misconduct that is not shielded from judicial inquiry and may serve as grounds for ordering a new trial.
Facts:
- Derrick Powell was injured in an automobile collision with another motorist.
- The Powells, who are black and of Jamaican birth, recovered the $10,000 policy limit from the other motorist's insurance.
- Seeking further damages, the Powells brought an action against their own insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, under their underinsured motorist coverage.
- The case was tried before an all-white jury.
- During the trial and subsequent deliberations, several jurors made racial jokes and derogatory statements about the Powells and their witness.
- For example, the juror who became foreman told a joke about receiving points for hitting a Black person with a car.
- Other jurors speculated that the Powells' children were likely drug dealers and compared a Black witness to a chimpanzee.
- After the verdict was rendered, one juror contacted the Powells' attorney and the judge to report the racial comments.
Procedural Posture:
- Derrick and Eugenia Powell sued Allstate Insurance Company in a Florida trial court to recover underinsured motorist benefits.
- A jury awarded Mr. Powell $29,320 in damages and Mrs. Powell nothing.
- The Powells filed a motion for a new trial, or alternatively to interview the jury, after a juror reported racial bias during deliberations.
- The trial court conducted an interview with the reporting juror but ultimately denied the Powells' motions.
- The Powells, as appellants, appealed to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal first reversed the trial court, but on rehearing, it reversed itself and affirmed the trial court's denial of a new trial.
- The Powells then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review of the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury's consideration of racial jokes and stereotypes during trial proceedings and deliberations constitute an overt act of juror misconduct sufficient to warrant a judicial inquiry and a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Anstead
Yes. When appeals to racial bias are made openly among jurors, they constitute overt acts of misconduct that are not shielded from judicial review and may require a new trial. The court distinguished between a juror's internal, subjective thought processes, which inhere in the verdict and cannot be examined, and overt acts that might have prejudiced the jury. Openly expressed racial slurs and jokes fall into the latter category. Such conduct violates the litigants' constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury and equal protection under the law. The court held that if a party makes a sufficient showing that such overt racial statements were made, the trial court must conduct an inquiry. If the statements are found to have been made, a new trial must be ordered.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical exception to the long-standing rule that jury deliberations are sacrosanct and cannot be impeached by juror testimony. By classifying overt racial statements as reviewable misconduct rather than as a matter 'inhering in the verdict,' the court provides a mechanism to protect the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial from racial prejudice. This precedent empowers trial courts to investigate credible claims of bias expressed during deliberations, strengthening protections for minority litigants. The ruling creates a bright-line distinction between a juror's silent, unprovable bias and overt statements that can be verified and shown to have potentially influenced the verdict.
