Jury Misunderstandings During Deliberations in a Capital Case

In Johnson v. State, 593 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1992), the defendant relied upon the deposition of the jury foreman concerning misunderstandings of the jury during their deliberations in the penalty phase of a capital case. In rejecting this claim, the Court said: "The jury foreman was questioned about jury pollings during deliberations and the jury's understanding of the court's instructions. This testimony "essentially inheres in the verdict" as it relates what occurred in the jury room during the jury's deliberations. This Court has held that such juror testimony is inadmissible." (Id. at 210.)