While a jury was deciding the outcome of a medical malpractice case brought against the City of New York, a juror advised the court of some "heated" talk that was taking place behind-the-scenes.
Although the New York County Supreme Court Justice asked the jurors to be "civil," and directed that deliberations continue, the next day, Juror #3 expressed discomfort with the continued "threats" and "intimidation."
When #3 was excused, and replaced with an alternate, the City objected and took the position that the judge should have asked others whether they were being harassed. (The City also argued that the misbehaving juror should have been excused.)
After the plaintiff was awarded an $8 million recovery, the Appellate Division, First Department, thought the City's right to a fair trial had been compromised and that the juror's substitution--after deliberations had commenced and over the defense counsel's objection--denied the City a right to a fair trial.
The City wasn't about to take a beating.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Avila v. City of New York