Few post-trial revelations are more unsettling than learning that the jury was compromised. Whether a juror conducted independent online research about the case, communicated with an outside party during trial, failed to disclose a disqualifying relationship during voir dire, or engaged in improper deliberations, jury misconduct strikes at the legitimacy of the entire proceeding. The verdict may stand on the books — but did it result from the evidence, or from something else?

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) recognizes juror misconduct as an independent ground for a new trial. But pursuing a misconduct claim requires navigating a specific procedural framework, a demanding evidentiary standard, and a critical evidentiary rule that limits how much of what happened in the jury room can actually be used. This post explains all three.

What Constitutes Jury Misconduct

Jury misconduct encompasses a range of behaviors that compromise the integrity of the jury’s deliberations or verdict:

Independent research. A juror who searches the internet for information about the case, the parties, the attorneys, the subject matter, or the law applicable to the case has introduced extraneous information. This is among the most common forms of modern misconduct, and it is taken seriously: jurors are instructed to decide the case only on the evidence presented, and outside research defeats that fundamental guarantee.

Improper outside communications. Contact between a juror and a party, attorney, witness, or third party during trial — whether about the case or in circumstances suggesting bias — is grounds for a misconduct challenge. So is a juror receiving or passing information through social media during trial.

Failure to disclose material information during voir dire. If a juror concealed a bias, a relationship with a party or witness, or other disqualifying information during jury selection, the impartial jury the parties were entitled to never existed. This is one of the most difficult misconduct claims to establish — it requires showing both the concealment and that the concealed information would have supported a valid challenge for cause.

Improper deliberations. Examples include: deciding the case by coin flip or other chance mechanism, agreeing before deliberations that the jury will simply split the difference on damages, or one juror making material misstatements to other jurors about the law or the facts in a way that influenced the verdict.

Receiving extraneous information. A juror who brought a reference book into deliberations, who received a document or article about the case, or who had access to information about the case that was not admitted into evidence.

The Two-Part Test Under URCP 59(a)(2)

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) provides that a new trial may be granted based on misconduct of the jury. Utah courts apply a two-part test:

Part 1: Did misconduct occur? The moving party must present competent evidence establishing that the specific act of misconduct took place. Rumors, suspicions, and hearsay accounts from jurors about what other jurors said do not suffice.

Part 2: Was the misconduct prejudicial? Technical or trivial irregularities that had no plausible effect on the verdict will not support a new trial. The misconduct must have had a reasonable probability of influencing the verdict — not a certainty, but a meaningful possibility that the outcome was affected.

Both parts must be established. Strong evidence of misconduct that could not conceivably have affected the verdict fails the second part. Prejudicial misconduct that cannot be proven by competent evidence fails the first.

The Evidentiary Minefield: Utah Rule of Evidence 606(b)

The most significant obstacle in every jury misconduct case is Utah Rule of Evidence 606(b), which controls what evidence can be used to impeach a jury verdict. The rule draws a sharp line:

What jurors MAY testify about:

Whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention
Whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror

What jurors MAY NOT testify about:

Anything that occurred during deliberations
The effect of any event on any juror’s mental processes
Any juror’s mental processes in connection with the verdict — including how they weighed evidence, what they believed, or why they voted as they did

This distinction is strictly enforced, and navigating it requires precision. A juror may testify that another juror read from a printout during deliberations (that is what happened — an external fact). The juror may not testify that the printout changed their mind (that is a mental process). The former is admissible under 606(b)’s exception; the latter is not.

The key exceptions — extraneous information and outside influence — cover the most consequential forms of misconduct: independent research that entered deliberations, an outside communication that influenced a juror, a prejudicial document that was improperly before the jury. These are the situations where 606(b)’s exceptions actually allow a meaningful inquiry.

How to Investigate Jury Misconduct in Utah

Speaking with jurors post-verdict. Contacting jurors after a verdict is generally permissible in Utah, subject to professional conduct rules. Attorneys who contact jurors must not misrepresent the purpose of the contact, not pressure jurors to recant their account or change their position, and document conversations carefully and contemporaneously. Best practice is to send a brief letter explaining that the attorney is evaluating post-trial options and would appreciate the juror’s voluntary willingness to discuss any concerns about the trial — rather than approaching jurors directly without notice.

Social media investigation. Post-verdict social media review can reveal that a juror posted about the case during trial, conducted searches related to the case, or expressed bias about the parties or subject matter before being selected. Screenshots should be preserved immediately — social media content can be deleted.

Voir dire transcript review. Review the voir dire transcript carefully against information obtained about jurors post-trial. If a juror failed to disclose a relationship with a party or witness, a professional connection to the subject matter, or a strong prior opinion about the issues, the discrepancy between the voir dire answers and the known facts establishes the concealment.

Court and court officer records. In rare cases, improper contact between a juror and a court officer, party, or attorney is reflected in court records or security logs.

What the Motion Must Show

A Rule 59 motion for new trial based on jury misconduct must:

Identify the specific misconduct — the date, nature, and participants
Present competent evidence — juror affidavits, social media records, documentary evidence. Not secondhand accounts from non-jurors about what they heard a juror say; not hearsay from one juror about another juror’s mental processes
Navigate 606(b) carefully — present evidence only about what happened (extraneous information, outside influence), not about deliberative processes or mental states
Demonstrate prejudice — explain how the misconduct had a reasonable probability of affecting the verdict, connecting the specific misconduct to the outcome
Be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. See our post-trial deadlines guide.

When Misconduct Is Discovered After the 28-Day Window

If misconduct is discovered after the 28-day Rule 59 window has closed, Rule 60(b)(3) may provide a path. Rule 60(b)(3) allows relief from a final judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party. This requires filing within the Rule 60(b) time limits and satisfying the Rule 60(b)(3) standard — which is demanding.

Critically, Rule 60(b)(3) governs misconduct by the adverse party, not juror misconduct. In cases where juror misconduct was the product of — or was facilitated by — misconduct by the opposing party (tampering, improper contact arranged by a party), 60(b)(3) may apply. For standalone juror misconduct discovered after 28 days, the path is harder, and a careful legal analysis of whether 60(b)(6)’s extraordinary circumstances ground might apply is necessary.

See our Rule 60(b) guide for the full framework.

Appellate Review

The trial court’s ruling on a jury misconduct motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual determinations — whether misconduct occurred, whether it was prejudicial — receive deference on appeal. Legal questions — whether evidence about the misconduct was properly admitted or excluded under Rule 606(b) — are reviewed de novo.

This asymmetry matters strategically. The strongest jury misconduct appeals are those where the trial court’s legal ruling on the 606(b) question was itself wrong — admitting evidence that should have been excluded, or excluding evidence that 606(b) permits — rather than those where the court weighed the evidence and concluded prejudice was not established.

KEY RULE

URCP Rule 59(a)(2) and Utah Rule of Evidence 606(b)

Jury misconduct is an independent ground for new trial under Rule 59(a)(2). The two-part test requires: (1) competent evidence that misconduct occurred, and (2) a reasonable probability the misconduct affected the verdict. The critical evidentiary constraint is Utah Rule of Evidence 606(b): jurors may testify about extraneous information brought to the jury’s attention or outside influence brought to bear on a juror, but may not testify about deliberative processes or their own or others’ mental states. All evidence and argument must navigate this distinction precisely or face exclusion.

If You Suspect Jury Misconduct

Begin the investigation immediately — jurors’ memories fade, social media posts get deleted, and the 28-day window does not pause while you gather evidence. Engage appellate counsel early to ensure the investigation is conducted properly (preserving 606(b) admissibility), the motion is framed correctly (connecting misconduct to prejudice), and the record is built for the appeal that may follow. Lotus Appellate Law handles post-trial motions and appeals throughout Utah. Contact us to discuss your situation.

Lotus Appellate Law — Post-Trial Motion Evaluation
Post-trial motions are appellate work. How they are framed, what issues they preserve, and how the trial court rules on them shapes everything the Utah Court of Appeals gets to decide. Lotus Appellate Law handles post-trial motions and civil appeals throughout Utah — at the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court level. Reach out to schedule a free consultation.

Schedule a Call

Post-Trial Motions Based on Jury Misconduct in Utah