November 2015 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 251: The Measure of Misconduct

 To access the article related to this test, please click here.
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


Test Sheet

Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. In California, the party moving for new trial based on juror misconduct must demonstrate the existence of juror misconduct and its prejudicial impact on the verdict.

2. A juror’s statement to other jurors of prejudgment of the case may constitute bias regardless of whether the other jurors were affected by the statement.

3. In federal court, a juror declaration stating that another juror made comments during deliberations evidencing the juror’s concealed bias against a party is admissible.

4. The federal standard for granting a new trial due to juror misconduct is "reasonable possibility" that the verdict was affected.

5. The right to a new trial due to juror misconduct is constitutional.

6. A juror declaration stating that the jury’s discussion of extraneous matters outside the evidence influenced his or her verdict and caused him or her to vote a certain way is admissible in California.

7. It is not enough to demonstrate that a juror was biased against the losing party; a showing must also be made that the juror’s statements of bias actually influenced the jury’s verdict.

8. A juror declaration stating that another juror’s statement during the trial that his or her mind was already made up and there was no point in listening to the evidence is admissible.

9. Any juror misconduct violates a party’s right to a jury trial and will therefore invalidate the verdict.

10. Federal and California courts treat a juror's use of social media during a trial similar to a juror's use of a dictionary.

11. A juror's statement during deliberation that he or she will never find in favor of the corporate defendant because all corporations are corrupt and repeatedly lie is admissible to show either concealed bias or juror misconduct in the form of offering extraneous information into deliberations; the evidence cannot go to both bias and juror misconduct.

12. Statements concerning another juror's hostility during deliberations may be admissible to demonstrate concealed bias.

13. When it appears likely that a juror was actually biased, the trial court can refuse to grant a new trial if the court believes that the same verdict would have been reached by an unbiased jury.

14. When juror declarations reveal that the jury considered extrinsic evidence during deliberations, the court may consider the extent to which the jurors discussed the extrinsic evidence, the length of time it was available to the jury, and juror testimony as to whether the extrinsic evidence influenced how they ultimately cast their vote.

15. A juror declaration stating that during deliberations the juror foreman told the other jurors that he refused to vote for the plaintiff because the plaintiff was poor and just looking for a deep pocket to sue is admissible in California.

16. In California, when jurors have been exposed to extraneous information during deliberations inadvertently, a presumption of prejudice does not arise since the jurors did not intentionally consider extraneous information.

17. A juror's sharing of his or her life experiences during deliberations can never be a ground for juror misconduct warranting a new trial.

18. In California, even when the prevailing party submits no counterdeclarations regarding the alleged juror misconduct, the presumption of prejudice may be rebutted by the court's review of the entire record and finding that there is no reasonable probability of actual harm.

19. In federal court, a juror's statement that during deliberations another juror brought in a dictionary and read the definition of a word to the jury is inadmissible.

20. A juror's concealment of bias may be so extreme as to constitute a per se violation of a party's right to jury.

Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.