A Juror's Regret Cannot Undo a Verdict: What Jones v. Cleveland Clinic Means for Families

Published August 13, 2020 · Ohio Court Decisions

A trial is often the moment a grieving family has waited years for. The family tells its story, the evidence comes in, and eight citizens decide. So it is painful to imagine learning, after a loss at trial, that one of those jurors wished she had voted the other way.

That is what happened to the family in Jones v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2020-Ohio-3780. On July 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the juror's letter could not be used to set aside the verdict. The decision is not a good one for this family, and I want to be honest about that. But it also teaches lessons every family facing a trial should understand.

What happened

According to the Court's opinion, ReDon Jones went to a Cleveland Clinic hospital with chest pain. A stress test was read as negative. About a week later, he died of a heart attack. His wife, as administrator of his estate, filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice case claiming that a cardiac catheterization would have found his blocked artery and saved his life.

The trial lasted one week. Deliberations began on a Friday morning. By that evening the jurors reported they were split four to four. One juror was excused for a family emergency and an alternate took her place, so deliberations had to start over. Later that night the jury sent a note saying it was deadlocked, that the jurors were "tired, cranky," and asking if they could go home. The judge told them they could return Monday. Within about half an hour, the jury announced a six to two verdict for the defense. Each of the six jurors in the majority confirmed the vote when polled.

A month later, one juror wrote to the court. She said she had believed the doctor was negligent but changed her vote "to speed the process along," and now had to live with that decision.

The trial court refused to consider the letter and denied a new trial. The court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals.

What the Court decided

The letter could not be considered. Ohio Evidence Rule 606(B) generally bars a juror from testifying about what happened during deliberations, or about what influenced the juror's vote, in order to attack a verdict. The rule also says that a juror's affidavit "or evidence of any statement by the juror" on those subjects will not be received. The Court held that a letter is exactly that kind of statement. There are narrow exceptions, such as evidence of outside influence or of a threat or bribe, but none applied.

No new trial was required. The Court found no misconduct or irregularity. It noted that the jury had deliberated for about a day, and for less than three hours after starting over with the alternate. It found no error in the timing of the instruction judges give to deadlocked juries, because the judge was preparing to give it when the verdict was announced.

The family's appeal is not entirely over. The court of appeals had also found that the trial court wrongly limited some deposition testimony and failed to rule on discovery motions, and it had not yet decided whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court sent the case back so the court of appeals could decide those issues.

Justice Stewart wrote separately. She agreed with the result but expressed concern about how the jury's long final day was managed, observing that confidence in a verdict reached under those conditions is "tenuous."

Why this matters to families

Jury deliberations are private, and verdicts are final. The rule that protects the jury room protects every verdict, including verdicts for families. But it means that what jurors say afterward, however sincere, almost never changes the outcome.

Problems must be raised during trial. The Court explained that in civil cases, an error no one objected to at trial (so-called plain error) justifies relief only in extremely rare cases. If something seems wrong while a jury is deliberating, the time to ask the judge for relief is then. Families should choose lawyers who are prepared for every stage of trial, including the late hours.

Medical wrongful death cases are hard. Cases that turn on what a test showed, or what a doctor should have ordered, often come down to a contest between medical witnesses. Our page on medical malpractice wrongful death explains how these cases are built, and our earlier post on requesting hospital and nursing home records covers the first step.

Trial is one of several paths. Many wrongful death cases resolve through mediation or settlement after the evidence has been developed. A trial gives a family its day in court, but it also carries the risk of a result like this one. Our guide chapter on how cases are resolved explains the choices, and our overview of Ohio wrongful death law covers who may bring the claim.

A word to the Jones family and families like them

Losing at trial after years of effort is its own grief. If you are in that place, know that a verdict is a legal outcome, not a judgment about how much your loved one mattered. And as this case shows, there may still be issues left to decide on appeal.