Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog
Postconviction challenges based on juror misconduct strike at the core of a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury, yet Florida law places strict limits on when those claims may be raised. When allegations surface years after a verdict, courts closely scrutinize whether the information qualifies as newly discovered evidence or could have been uncovered through a timely investigation. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how narrowly courts interpret the due diligence requirement and why even serious claims of juror nondisclosure may be barred if raised too late. If you are accused of a violent crime, you should talk to a Sarasota criminal defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your rights.
Facts of the Case
Allegedly, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon and received life sentences on both counts following a jury trial in circuit court. The convictions became final after the appellate court affirmed them by mandate more than a decade earlier.
Reportedly, years after the judgment became final, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged juror misconduct based on a juror’s failure to disclose information during voir dire, including the criminal histories of close family members and the juror’s proximity to the crime scene.
It is alleged that the defendant argued the motion was timely because the information constituted newly discovered evidence that could not have been uncovered earlier through due diligence. In support, the defendant attached an affidavit from a private jury investigation company describing how it located the information through public records searches and online resources.
It is reported that the postconviction court summarily denied the motion as untimely, concluding that the newly discovered evidence exception did not apply. The court also denied a subsequent motion for rehearing or reconsideration.
Reportedly, the defendant appealed the summary denial, contending that he could not have discovered the juror’s nondisclosures within the two-year time limit and relying heavily on Florida Supreme Court precedent addressing concealed juror information.
Newly Discovered Evidence in Criminal Cases
On appeal, the court applied de novo review to the summary denial of the postconviction motion. The court reiterated that Rule 3.850 imposes a strict two-year deadline for filing postconviction motions, subject only to limited exceptions, including newly discovered evidence that could not have been ascertained through due diligence.
The court examined the legal standard governing newly discovered evidence claims and emphasized that the inquiry focuses not on when a defendant actually discovered the information, but on whether the information was discoverable within the permissible time frame through reasonable efforts. The court distinguished between information that is inherently undiscoverable without voluntary disclosure and information available through public records.
In evaluating the defendant’s reliance on prior precedent, the court compared cases in which juror misconduct claims were allowed to proceed outside the time bar with those in which they were deemed procedurally barred. The court explained that when concealed information involves public arrest records, addresses, or family relationships that can be traced through official databases, due diligence requires a timely investigation.
The court carefully reviewed the investigative methods described in the affidavit attached to the motion. Those methods included searching clerk of court databases, corrections records, law enforcement reports, and publicly available social media information. The court concluded that these same methods were available well before the filing deadline and did not depend on the existence of a particular investigative company.
The court rejected arguments based on financial inability to retain investigators, noting that the lack of resources does not excuse compliance with procedural rules. It further clarified that neither the defense nor the State has an affirmative duty to investigate jurors, but defendants who intend to raise juror misconduct claims must do so within the established timeframe.
Based on this analysis, the court held that the defendant failed to establish an applicable exception to the time bar. Because the motion was untimely as a matter of law, the court affirmed the summary denial without reaching the merits of the alleged juror bias.
Talk to a Skilled Sarasota Violent Crime Defense Attorney
If you are charged with a violent offense, it is critical to talk to an attorney about what defenses you may be able to assert to avoid a conviction. The skilled Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can assess your case and help you seek the best possible legal outcome. You can contact our Sarasota office online or call 941-462-1789 to schedule a confidential consultation.