Blogs

When jurors do their own research: Tennessee Court sets new trial standard

8/7/26

By: Donald Patrick Eckler

For claims professionals, healthcare providers, and defense counsel, juror misconduct allegations can transform a defense verdict into years of additional litigation. A recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision provides important guidance on when a jury’s exposure to outside information will justify a new trial and what parties must prove to either challenge or defend a verdict.

In Collier ex rel. Chayce C. v. Roussis, the Court addressed a healthcare liability case arising from treatment provided to a pregnant patient who suffered an anaphylactic reaction. A central issue throughout trial was whether treating physicians appropriately declined to administer epinephrine. After a lengthy retrial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Following the verdict, however, it was discovered that one juror had gone home during deliberations, reviewed the warning label on an EpiPen, and shared that information with fellow jurors. The information related directly to the risks and benefits of administering epinephrine during pregnancy, one of the key contested issues at trial.

The plaintiff sought a new trial, arguing that the jury had been exposed to improper outside information. The trial court ultimately denied relief, concluding that the plaintiff had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the information actually affected the jury’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to clarify the proper legal framework.

The Supreme Court adopted a burden-shifting approach that closely mirrors Tennessee’s criminal jurisprudence. First, the party challenging the verdict must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the jury was exposed to material extraneous information. If that burden is satisfied, prejudice is presumed. The burden then shifts to the party defending the verdict to demonstrate that the exposure was harmless by establishing that there is no reasonable possibility the information would have altered the verdict of a reasonable jury.

Importantly, the Court rejected prior decisions suggesting that a litigant must prove prejudice by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also emphasized that Rule 606(b) generally prevents inquiry into the subjective thought processes of jurors. As a result, courts should focus on objective factors, including the nature of the information, its relationship to disputed issues, how many jurors were exposed, when the exposure occurred, the degree of discussion among jurors, and the overall strength of the evidence supporting the verdict.

For insurers, healthcare providers, and other defendants, the decision offers several practical lessons.

First, even a favorable verdict may remain vulnerable when jurors conduct independent research on topics central to the case.

Second, preserving a record concerning jury instructions and any allegations of misconduct is critical because post-trial proceedings may focus heavily on the details of how the information was obtained and shared.

Third, when defending a verdict, counsel should be prepared to develop evidence demonstrating that any outside information was cumulative of trial evidence and could not reasonably have affected the outcome.

The ruling strikes a balance between protecting the integrity of jury verdicts and preventing automatic retrials whenever juror misconduct is discovered.

For claims adjusters and potential clients facing high-exposure litigation, the case serves as a reminder that successful trial strategy does not end with the verdict. Vigilance during and after trial remains essential to protecting favorable outcomes and minimizing the risk of costly post-trial challenges.

For more information, please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.