Do Irregularities Taking Place During Deliberation Constitute Extraneous Influence on Jury ?
In People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 457-58, 696 N.E.2d 313, 339, 231 Ill. Dec. 321 (1998), the defendant sought to use juror affidavits to establish that the jury foreperson was a police officer who had shown the other jurors his gun on the first day of the trial and had intimidated the other jurors into reaching a guilty verdict.
The court found that the foreperson's conduct could not properly be characterized as extraneous influence, and the affidavits pertained only to the deliberative process by which the verdict was reached.
As such, the affidavits were improper. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d at 463-65, 696 N.E.2d at 341-42.
In McMath v. Katholi, 304 Ill. App. 3d 369, 711 N.E.2d 1135, 238 Ill. Dec. 474 (1999), this court held that an affidavit pertaining solely to the conduct of jurors and their discussions in the jury room could not properly be used to impeach the jury's verdict.
Irregularities taking place during deliberations do not constitute extraneous influence. McMath, 304 Ill. App. 3d at 373-75, 711 N.E.2d at 1138-39.