11th Circuit: Objection to Sleeping Juror Must be Contemporaneous
11th Circuit: Objection to Sleeping Juror Must be Contemporaneous
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s order denying a new trial based on a sleeping juror because there was not a contemporaneous objection.
Florida prisoner Darrel Cummings filed a civil rights action against the warden and three guards at Taylor Correctional Institution. His pro se complaint alleged denial of his First Amendment right to criticize the state without retaliation, Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference to his health and safety. The complaint asserted assault and verbal abuse to support the claims.
The matter went to trial on March 28, 2011. During the first day of trial, the Magistrate Judge noticed a that one of the jurors was asleep. The judge informed the parties and confronted the juror in chambers. Afterwards, the court announced it would take “no action at this point on the matter we just discussed.” Neither party objected.
On the third day of trial, another juror was dismissed because he knew a witness. That took the jury to the minimum number of jurors with no alternatives. The sleeping juror became the foreperson, and the jury found for the defendants.
Cummings moved for a new trial, which the magistrate Court granted based upon the sleeping juror. The defendants moved for reconsideration. The motion was granted, and the new trial was denied because Cummings had failed to object at the time the court decided to not remove the sleeping juror.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that Cummings had waived the issue by not making a contemporaneous objection. The district court’s order was affirmed.
See: Cummings v. Department of Corrections, 757 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir 2014).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Cummings v. Department of Corrections
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 757 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir 2014) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.3d |