Bailiff Orientation - Interaction with Jurors

Bailiff Orientation - Interaction with Jurors
Print Version

Click here to print.
Click here to close window.

Table of Contents

Unit 1 - Bailiff Role & Characteristics
Your Role as a Bailiff
Characteristics of a Bailiff
Ethical Considerations

Unit 2 - Jurors
Juror Selection
Juror Qualifications
How Jurors are Excused

Unit 3 - Responsibilities, Trial Sequence, & Terms
Bailiff Responsibilities
Trial Sequence

Unit 4 - Duties During Trial & Deliberation
The Law To Guide Bailiffs
Managing Jurors During the Trial
Responding to Jurors Questions During the Trial
Managing Jurors during Deliberation

Unit 5 - Case Law
Case Law Intro
Control of Jury
Bailiff/Juror Communications
Exhibits Not in Evidence
Clarification of Instructions
Jury’s Access to Phones, etc.
Miscellaneous Case Law covering:
• Communication between witness and jury
• Communication between jurors and third parties
• View by jury – Communications between jury and third party
• Presence of alternate juror
• Experiments or research by jury
• Unauthorized view by jury
• Miscellaneous conduct by bailiff or jury

Your Role as a Bailiff
The judge in the case determines your specific duties; however, these are some general guidelines.

A bailiff acts as the court's liaison with litigants, jurors, attorneys, and the public.
Many of you have other duties besides bailiff.
The judge/court manager determines your specific bailiff duties.
Essential bailiff duties are the same throughout the state.

Characteristics of a Bailiff

Knowledgeable, respectful, efficient and helpful in managing judicial process
Professional and courteous to all court users
Business-like clothing and manner of speaking
Exercises tact and discretion
Respectful of cultural, ethnic, and racial differences you will find among jury panels. Be sure to include all the members in any group decisions or activities.

Ethical Considerations
Do not:

Accept gifts from jurors, lawyers, or anyone affiliated with the case
Discuss aspects of the case with jurors before or during the trial, and even after the jury has given its verdict and has been dismissed.
Discuss information that the judge did not allow into evidence

Do:

Report juror misbehavior to the judge promptly

Juror Selection

The jury selection process begins with combining lists of voters, licensed drivers, and identicard holders.
Every year these combined lists create prospective juror source lists.
Each county randomly picks prospective jurors from its own source list.
Next, the court mails summons to prospective jurors to report for jury duty.
Then, qualifications are checked by the prospective juror completing the juror summons form.
The next steps occur at the courthouse. Each court has its own procedures. The judge's welcome to the court, information about compensation, parking, and jury phone use are typically covered.
When prospective jurors are drawn for a specific case and are escorted to the court room by the bailiff, they are questioned in a process called Voir dire.
Next, attorneys for each party challenge the selection of prospective jurors. Each party to the dispute has the right to challenge. Parties alternately exercise their challenges. This process can last from less than an hour to several hours.
When Voir dire is completed, the jury is impaneled. This is the final step of the juror selection process. The jurors are then sworn in.

Juror Qualifications
The qualifications for eligibility to serve as a juror in Washington state law are:

A citizen
Age eighteen or over
A resident of the county in which they are summoned to serve
Able to communicate in English and
Not deprived of their civil rights following a conviction for a felony.

How Jurors are Excused
In order to be excused from jury service by the court a prospective juror must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Undue hardship
Extreme inconvenience
Public necessity
Or any reason deemed sufficient by the court for a period of time the court deems necessary.

Bailiffs do not have the authority to make this decision. Depending on the court, jurors requesting to be excused from jury service must be referred to either the court manager or judge

Bailiff Responsibilities
Remember that until jurors are impaneled, they are prospective jurors.
The main responsibilities of a bailiff include - 'Jury Selection' and ‘At Trial.’

The "Jury Selection" responsibilities are:

Assemble the jurors as they come into the jury assembly room on the first day.
Prepare the jury deliberation room for jurors with the items they will need, such as beverages, note taking materials and other items allowed and provided by your court.
Often times bailiffs will be involved with signing in jurors as they come to the juror assembly room.
Once they are selected for a trial, bailiffs escort jurors from the assembly room to the courtroom and familiarize them with the jury deliberation room.
Be present during the selection of jurors and assist this process as directed by the judge.
Aquaint jurors with the trial process.

The "At Trial" responsibilities are:

Be responsible for re-assembling jurors after recesses, at mealtimes, and when they return to the court for the next day of jury duty.
Escort jurors to and from the courtroom and also for mealtimes and other events.
During the trial, remain with the jurors in the courtroom and attend to their needs.
When the time comes for jurors to deliberate, the bailiff will gather up the exhibits, make sure each juror has a copy of the instructions the court has given them to use during deliberations and escort the jurors to the deliberation room.
During deliberations the bailiff is the sole contact with the jurors, unless of course they return to the courtroom for further information the judge allows them to have.
After the jury has reached its verdict the bailiff will often ask them to complete an exit questionnaire and will remain with the jury until the jurors are discharged by the judge.

Trial Sequence

Opening statement
The first step in the sequence of a trial are opening statements by counsel. This is the presentation of the case from each party's perspective. This is the first opportunity for each attorney to tell the jury about the case from their client's point of view.
Presentation of plaintiff’s case
The next step in the sequence of a trial is the presentation of the plaintiff’s case. In domestic violence cases plaintiffs are called petitioners. The presentation of the plaintiff's case features the testimony of witnesses. This includes:
   • Plaintiff’s direct examination
   • Defendant’s cross-examination
   • Redirect examination
   • Re-cross examination
That concludes the presentation of the plaintiff's case. Now it's time for the presentation of the defendant’s case.
Presentation of defendant’s case
The next step in the sequence of a trial is the presentation of the defendant’s case.
The presentation of the defendant's case features the testimony of witnesses. This includes:
   • Defendant’s direct examination
   • Plaintiff’s cross examination
   • Redirect examination
   • Re-cross examination
Rebuttal testimony
The next step in the sequence of a trial is the rebuttal testimony
Jury instruction conference & taking of exceptions
Next is the jury instruction conference and taking of exceptions. They are conducted out of the presence of the jury. Counsel and the judge confer as to what instructions to give the jury. This is where they either agree or "take exceptions" on the instructions to give the jury.
Reading of instructions to jury
The jury returns and the judge reads the instructions to the jury.
Final arguments by counsel
The final arguments are given by counsel. Each party summarizes their case, explaining why the jury should decide in their favor. This step includes:
   • Plaintiff’s argument
   • Defendant’s argument
   • Plaintiff’s rebuttal
Alternate jurors are excused
Next, the alternate jurors are excused.
Jury deliberates
Then the jury deliberates. This critical phase of the trial can take a few minutes to several days.
Court receives verdict
The last step in the sequence of a trial is the court receiving a verdict or discharging the jury if the jury cannot reach a verdict. Sentencing is scheduled for a later date.

The Law To Guide Bailiffs
There are 3 basic sources of the law for bailiffs that guide them as they carry out their duties:

The first of these is the Revised Code of Washington, or RCW. For example RCW 2.32.360 allows courts to appoint “…as many bailiffs as may be necessary for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of the business.”

A second source of guidance for bailiffs is the Rules of Court as adopted by the Washington Supreme Court. Court rules govern the practice and procedures in the state courts. Each individual court can adopt its own local court rules to supplement the statewide rules. An example of a court rule is the Superior Court Criminal Rule, or CrR 6.7, which deals with the Custody of Jury.

Thirdly, there is Case Law, which are the opinions of the appellate and supreme court on how the RCW and Court Rules should be interpreted. Case law is an important source of rules to guide courts, and bailiffs, as they perform their duties. Case law is referred to in this fashion - State v. Lane 37 Wn. 2d 145 (1950). This means that the title of the case is the State of Washington versus the Defendant Lane and the other numbers and letters tell you this is a Washington State Supreme Court case that is found in volume 37,on page 145 which was decided in 1950.

Additionally Washington State trial courts have adopted standards to guide them in the conduct of their jury activities. These standards are known as the Washington Jury Management Standard and you will find them quite useful in giving you a sense of how juries are to be conducted.

Managing Jurors During the Trial
Your court has practices that may be somewhat different than these that will take into account local needs.

Greet prospective jurors and advise them where to be seated in the courtroom awaiting jury roll call.
Assist jurors as they are seated in the jury box.
Obtain items such as tissue, water, etc., as required to assist jurors or prospective jurors.
At recesses, lead jurors from the courtroom to the jury room and, when court is resumed, from the jury room back to the courtroom. Jurors should be assembled so that they can file into court in the order they are seated in the jury box.
During recesses, monitor the restrooms and corridors to prevent contact by jurors with counsel, litigants, witnesses, and spectators.
When jurors are dismissed at noon or evening recess, remind them of the time they are to return. Also, advise them not to return before the hour you will open the jury room. Jurors should not be in the corridor where they may be in contact with litigants, witnesses, or others who may express an opinion concerning the case.
Defendants held in jail.
If a criminal defendant is in custody, the defense attorney will arrange to have the defendant brought into court.
Note: It may be grounds for a mistrial for prospective or impaneled jurors to see a defendant in a jail uniform or restraints. Ask the judge about how to prevent jurors from seeing restrained defendants. Be sure the defendant is in the courtroom before prospective jurors arrive. (While voir dire and trial are in progress, be sure all jurors return to the jury 10 to 15 minutes early, before the defendant is brought from jail.) When the jury is excused for recess, hold all jurors in the jury room until the defendant has been returned to jail.
Excluding witnesses.
Counsel may ask the court to order witnesses excluded from the courtroom except when actually testifying. If the judge enters such an order, post a sign on the outside of the courtroom.
It is counsels’ duty to prevent their witnesses from actually entering the courtroom. After a witness has been permanently excused by the court, he or she may be inside the courtroom from then on. You should question strangers as to who they are, in order to help counsel comply with the court’s order.
It is wise to observe what items and reading material the jurors bring to the jury room. If you feel something might be objectionable, bring it to the attention of the judge.
Check with the judge as to what materials can be kept in the jury room. Reading material or cartoons could have an influence in certain cases.
If a juror makes any comments regarding the trial, relay the information to the judge. If a juror has a question, ask that he or she write it down without discussing it with other jurors, for you to give to the judge.
Jurors are normally allowed to take notes during trial. The judge will normally instruct the jurors on whether they may keep their notes during recesses. (Different courts may have different policies in this regard.) The jurors may take their notes into the jury room during deliberations. After the verdict is formally announced, the notes are to be destroyed.
In civil cases, jurors may be permitted to ask questions of a witness. You should find out how your local court handles this and what forms are used. Do not volunteer any information about questioning by a juror. That is the job of the judge.
The bailiff should be pleasant and make jurors as comfortable as possible, but should be careful not to comment or answer questions that might influence the jury.
The bailiff should instruct jurors not to leave the jury room or open the jury room door when closed, and to contact the bailiff if the jurors need anything.

Responding to Jurors Questions During the Trial
As custodian of the jury, the bailiff must necessarily have some communication with the jurors in attending to their needs, checking on whether they have reached a verdict, and carrying messages to and from the trial judge.

Communications with the jurors should be restricted to those coming within the performance of these duties, however. The bailiff must never discuss the pending case with jurors.

Occasionally borderline situations arise, in which communications with jurors may or may not be proper. It is extremely important to err on the side of caution with regard to answering questions from jurors. Answers to some questions may appear to be innocuous but are not.
When in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Managing Jurors during Deliberation

When the case is given to the jury, the bailiff ushers the jurors into the jury room. The jury instructions, the verdict form(s), and admitted exhibits are taken to the jury room by the bailiff. Exhibits that were not admitted, depositions, and attorneys’ notes do not go to the jury room. Many judges will ask the attorneys to check the exhibits before the bailiff takes them to the jury room, to be sure that the jury does not receive any material that it should not have.
Jurors who have taken notes during trial are allowed to have those notes in jury room during deliberations. After the verdict is formally announced, all juror notes must be collected and destroyed.
The bailiff should not enter the jury room at any time while the jury is deliberating. The bailiff should not answer any questions and should ask the presiding juror (foreman) to put any requests or questions in writing. Any communication between the bailiff and the presiding juror (foreman) should be at the open door of the jury room.
The bailiff makes any telephone calls requested by jurors, after obtaining the judge’s permission. It is important that families know when a juror is to be delayed. Attorneys may want access to telephone messages. Do not destroy them until after the trial is completed.
The bailiff does not deliver any communication to a juror without permission from the judge.
When a written question is received from the jury, the bailiff should note the time received and the contents for the clerk’s minutes and contact the judge immediately. If an answer is delivered to the jury, the clerk will note the time and contents for the clerk’s minutes. The bailiff should instruct the jury that the note must be saved because it is part of the official court record. Some courts have a typed instruction that is stapled to the note, stating that the note must be saved. Other courts attach the note to a cardboard holder, stating that the note must be saved.
The bailiff should not provide the jury with any tools (ruler, magnifying glass, calculator, etc.) or equipment (tape recorder, shadow box, projector, etc.) without permission from the judge.
If the jury has not reached a verdict and it is nearing lunch or the dinner hour, ask the judge if you should inquire whether the jury wants to eat. Often during deliberation it is easier for courts to order a lunch for jurors to eat in the deliberation room.
Ask all jurors to step into the courtroom, and lock the jury room door. Remind jurors that they are not to discuss the case outside the jury room. Check hallways to see that they are cleared of parties, spectators, and witnesses.
While at lunch with a deliberating jury, be very guarded about questions you are asked. A slip of the tongue could cause a mistrial. Jurors often ask how long they will deliberate or whether they will be allowed to go home at a certain time. Your answer may influence their deliberation.
Jurors should not be allowed to pay more than the amount allowed for meals. Jurors cannot order alcoholic beverages.
If the jury is allowed to separate (leave the courthouse) during deliberation, the judge will have the jury come to the box and will instruct them regarding the separation. In a criminal case, the bailiff should check with the judge about whether the defendant should be present.
If a jury is sequestered during a trial, carefully go over all security precautions with the judge and any other bailiffs.
In felony cases, the defendant must be present for the verdict, and most judges require defense counsel to be present or have presence waived on the record. The bailiff should ask attorneys to leave a telephone number where they can be reached with the clerk. The attorneys are supposed to stay within 10 minutes calling from the courthouse.
Verdict. When the jurors indicate they have reached a verdict:
a. Inform judge.
b. When counsel and the parties have assembled, the judge will direct you to have jurors return to box. They take their usual seats in the box, with the presiding juror (foreman) carrying only the form of verdict(s). The judge asks the presiding juror (foreman) if a verdict has been reached and directs the presiding juror (foreman) to give the form to bailiff. The bailiff delivers it, unread, to the judge.
c. As the verdict is read, or immediately thereafter, go to the jury room, gather and count the exhibits and instructions, and return them to the clerk as soon as possible. Destroy any notes the jurors have made.
d. After court adjourns, return any jurors’ possessions that you previously removed from the jury room.
e. Sometimes there will be dangerous items of evidence—firearms, drugs, knives, etc. The nature of these items requires extra care to assure that necessary safety precautions are taken.
f. Sealed verdict procedure. When the jury indicates they have reached a verdict in a criminal case but defendant or attorney cannot be located, the bailiff gives the presiding juror (foreman) a large envelope in which to place the verdict. The bailiff instructs the presiding juror (foreman) to seal and place signature across the sealed envelope. The bailiff then brings jury into open court where the judge questions the presiding juror (foreman) as to the condition of the envelope. Bailiff gives envelope to the clerk, who has care and control until proper parties are together in court at a later time.

The court excuses the jury for the evening with instructions to return at a specified time. At that time, the envelope is returned to the presiding juror (foreman) in open court and the judge questions the presiding juror (foreman) as to the condition of the envelope. The judge will then have the presiding juror (foreman) remove the verdict from the envelope and hand it to bailiff.

Case Law Intro
As we have discussed earlier case law is one of the three main sources to guide bailiffs in their conduct when working with jurors. Case law, you will recall, provides important interpretation of the RCWs and Court Rules.

Your judge will find important guidance for your work as a bailiff in the case law that courts have provided. Each of the lessons below cover a different area of your interaction as a bailiff with jurors.

You will see that each lesson provides a short story with some information on what the appellate courts decided and will serve as guidance to you in your work. For example, here is a case law decision on a bailiff’s duty to control the jury. The case is State v. Rose, 43 Wn.2d 553 (1953)

Control of Jury
State v. Rose, 43 Wn.2d 553 (1953).
During a week-long criminal trial and deliberation, in which the jury was not allowed to separate, several acts of misconduct occurred—the wife of a juror entering the jury room to have a document signed; jurors’ conversation with non-juror spouses during dinner; one juror leaving the dinner table and making a telephone call; jurors leaving the table during meals to cash checks and purchase cigars and cigarettes unaccompanied by a bailiff; and jurors visiting the public restroom unaccompanied by a bailiff. On appeal, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the bailiff violated his statutory duty to prevent the jury from receiving any outside communication, and that the bailiff failed to comply with the court’s order that the jury not be allowed to separate. The court held that the violation of the statute raised a presumption of prejudice to the defendant, which the State had the burden of overcoming.

As you see, the court in this case provided some direction to the bailiff. The court ruled that the bailiff violated his statutory duty to prevent the jury from receiving any outside communication. This is a vital lesson that you will need to keep in mind. This is also a reminder that the bailiff has the duty to ensure that jurors receive only information that the judge permits them to receive during the trial.

Bailiff/Juror Communications
In re Personal Restraint of Curry, 102 Wn.App. 1040, 2000 WL 1346677 (2000) (unpublished opinion).
Criminal case. Defendant claimed the bailiff asked jurors how close they were to reaching a verdict, and told jurors that judge had to leave by 4 p.m. Thus, the defendant argued, the bailiff improperly suggested that jurors should hurry along. Bailiff said she simply asked the jurors, “How are you doing?” and nothing more. Court of Appeals apparently believed the bailiff’s version and declined to grant a new trial, saying the communication was innocuous.

State v. Booth, 36 Wn.App. 66 (1983).
Bailiff responded to questions by jurors about why a certain witness had not testified. The court found the bailiff’s statements to be influential, prejudicial, and incapable of being cured by instruction. The court stated that a bailiff is forbidden from communicating with the jury during deliberations except to inquire whether it has reached a verdict, or to make innocuous or neutral statements. The purpose of the rule is to protect the jury from communications that may prejudice its verdict.

O’Brien v. Seattle, 52 Wn.2d 543 (1958).
During deliberation in a personal injury case, the bailiff responded to a question from the jury about an instruction by making a statement that several jurors interpreted as referring them to another instruction. The communication was neither made in open court nor authorized by the judge. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial, citing the trial court’s responsibility to avoid even the appearance of communication with jurors after the cause has been finally submitted to them. The court noted that the bailiff’s conducted violated RCW 4.44.300.

State v. Moore, 38 Wn.2d 118 (1951).
In a burglary trial, a right shoe was admitted as an exhibit, as well as a photograph marked as the imprint of a left shoe. During deliberation, the jury requested the left shoe. The bailiff informed the jury that the left shoe was unavailable and that the judge said they should disregard the writing on the photograph. On appeal, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the bailiff’s remarks constituted serious error and deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The court noted that an officer having charge of a jury should not have any communications with the jurors except to ask them whether they have agreed upon a verdict.

Exhibits Not in Evidence
Board of Regents v. Frederick & Nelson,
90 Wn.2d 82 (1978).
The bailiff in a civil case inadvertently delivered to the jury nine documents not admitted into evidence, along with the exhibits that had been admitted. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that an evaluation of the contents of the unadmitted documents raised a reasonable doubt as to their effect on the jury’s verdict, given the nature of the case and the theories involved. The court commented, however, that the inadvertent submission of unadmitted documents to the jury will not always result in a new trial.

Clarification of Instructions
State v. Safford, 24 Wn.App. 783 (1979).
During deliberation in a murder case, the jury sent out a note requesting a definition of “assault.” The judge wrote on the note, “read the instructions,” and the bailiff returned the note to the jury. On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that any error in the ex parte communication was harmless because the response conveyed no affirmative information to the jury and could not have been prejudicial.

State v. Russell, 25 Wn.App. 933 (1980).
During deliberation in a criminal case, the presiding juror (foreman) gave the bailiff a written note requesting clarification of a jury instruction. The bailiff telephoned the judge at home and read the note and instruction to him. The judge instructed the bailiff to inform the jury that the instruction meant exactly what was written in the instruction, and the bailiff did so. Counsel were not informed of the request or the judge’s response.
On appeal, the court held that any error in the procedure was harmless because the bailiff followed exactly the judge’s instructions, and the statement was entirely neutral in nature and did not define or explain the instruction. The court, however, noted that the appropriate procedure for a bailiff to communicate with a deliberating jury is to do so with counsel and the trial judge present.

You will have noticed that in both of these cases information was provided to the jury in a way that the reviewing court did not find especially commendable but the reviewing court did not overrule the trial court findings. But, what is most important to note is that the bailiff did not provide any additional information concerning the instructions, except as the judge authorized.

Jury’s Access to Phones, etc.
State v. Kell, 101 Wn.App. 619 (2000).
DUI case. Jury was allowed to separate during trial and deliberations. Bailiff learned jurors had been using a cell phone during deliberations. Bailiff conferred with judge and, on judge’s instructions, told jurors they could not use the cell phone in the jury room. Jurors later testified that all calls were for personal or family purposes. The jurors said the calls had nothing to do with the case and did not affect the deliberations in any way. The trial court declined to grant a new trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, saying the use of the cell phone was unlikely to have affected the outcome. The court, however, commented: “Although we find no abuse of discretion, we very much agree with the district court’s statement that in the future it should inquire about such phones and bar them from the jury room.”

DeYoung v. Cenex, Ltd., 100 Wn.App. 885 (2000).
Civil case. Near the end of the trial, it became apparent that one of the jurors had been using a laptop computer, at least during recesses. The juror admitted using the computer during recesses to play solitaire, and to work on a newsletter article unrelated to the trial. She had told another juror that she was “trying to get some work done during the breaks.” The evidence was conflicting on whether the juror had access to the computer during actual deliberations. The trial court declined to grant a new trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, saying the juror’s access to a computer was unlikely to have affected the outcome. The court, however, commented that every case was fact-specific, thus leaving open the possibility of a contrary result in a future case.

Adkins v. Clark County, 105 Wn.2d 675 (1986).
During deliberations in a civil case, the bailiff supplied the jurors with a Black’s Law Dictionary at their request. A mistrial was granted and the case was retried. When the second trial resulted in a defense verdict, plaintiffs brought an action against the county based upon the misconduct of the bailiff. Court held that bailiff and county were protected by doctrine of judicial immunity.

Miscellaneous Case Law covering:
• Communication between witness and jury
• Communication between jurors and third parties
• View by jury – Communications between jury and third party
• Presence of alternate juror
• Experiments or research by jury
• Unauthorized view by jury
• Miscellaneous conduct by bailiff or jury

Communication between witness and jury
State v. Lemieux, 75 Wn.2d 89 (1968).
During a rape trial, the judge, counsel, and court reporter had reason to confer in chambers while the witness remained on the witness stand and the jury in the jury box. During this interval, the witness engaged in friendly conversation with the jury.

The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial after evaluating the substance of the conversation and concluding that the witness’s remarks did not prejudice the defendant. The court noted the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant did not have a perfect trial but stated that more than a possibility of prejudice must be shown to warrant a new trial.

Communication between jurors and third parties
State v. Carroll, 119 Wash. 623 (1922).
Bailiff improperly conveyed a note to a juror during deliberations. The note was from the juror’s wife and was nonprejudicial.

View by jury – Communications between jury and third party
State v. Miller, 61 Wash. 125 (1910).
Defendant was charged with burglary and represented himself in a jury trial. On the witness stand, the defendant testified that bludgeoning and other violent acts were perpetrated against him by police officers while he was in the “dark hole” (jail). The court allowed a jury viewing of the “dark hole.” The defendant was found to be guilty.
The appellate court reversed the conviction, noting that when the jurors attended the viewing, they wandered off to the Police Chief’s office and there talked with the chief about the case. One of the jurors had picked up a pen from the chief’s desk and said that the pen must have been the bludgeon. The case shows that the bailiff should be a buffer between jurors and third persons and should discourage diversions from the intended viewing.

Presence of alternate juror
Jones v. Sisters of Providence of Washington, Inc., 140 Wn.2d 112 (2000).
In a medical malpractice case, an alternate juror was named but was not needed when deliberations began. Nevertheless, the trial court suggested that in the interests of efficiency, the alternate juror should participate during deliberations without voting — in case the alternate juror was needed later. Neither party objected, and the plan was carried out. The Supreme Court held that the procedure employed by the trial court was error and reversed — even though all parties had agreed to the procedure. The Supreme Court stated: “We are not dealing solely with the constitutional right to a jury trial, but also the integrity of the jury process itself. . . . Once [plaintiff] invoked his right to a civil jury, he had a reasonable expectation that the trial court would employ procedures that protected the jury from outside influences.”

Experiments or research by jury
Tarabochia v. Johnson Line, 73 Wn.2d 751 (1968).
During deliberations in a civil case, the jury performed a test or experiment in the jury room with certain admitted exhibits. On appeal, the court found no grounds for a new trial because the appellant was unable to show that the jurors discovered new material facts that influenced their verdict. The court cited the rule that distinguishes an experiment that is objectionable because it puts the jury in possession of new evidence not admitted at trial from an experiment that is not objectionable because it involves merely a critical examination of the evidence.

Unauthorized view by jury
Gardner v. Malone, 60 Wn.2d 836 (1962).
During a break in deliberation after a trial arising out of an automobile accident, three jurors visited the scene of the accident. During deliberation, the jurors also discussed other possible suits against the defendant. On appeal, the court remanded with directions to grant plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, finding that the visit and the improper discussion established a reasonable doubt as to whether plaintiff had a fair trial.

Miscellaneous conduct by bailiff or jury
State v. Jorden, 103 Wn.App. 221, 11 P.3d 866 (2000).
Criminal case. Juror was inattentive and fell asleep during trial, possibly due to loss of sleep because of health or family problems. After this happened repeatedly, the trial court excused the juror and replaced her with an alternate juror before deliberations began. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court should not have excused the juror without first questioning the juror about whether she had missed any important testimony. The Court of Appeals, however, saw no error and affirmed.