The interview with each juror is to seek out any actions or statements that might be considered misconduct under the court's rules in the jurisdiction. These are more subtle situations than a criminal act, such as jury tampering or payoffs, and include:

The jury's considering "everything but the evidence." The verdict is to be based solely on testimony given in the trial by both sides, not sympathy, anger, or other emotions.
Having a pseudo-expert (a juror who tells the other jury members of his personal experiences or knowledge of some factor of the evidence) in the jury room. (Pollak cited an actual example in which a juror who had some special knowledge of seat belts explained what he knew to the other jurors, that being contrary to the presented evidence in the trial.)
Prejudicial opinions based on personal knowledge, rather than on the presented evidence (a juror's statement such as "I had a similar injury once, and …").
The jury's considering that the plaintiff's attorney will get a percentage of the award, hence inflating the award to cover the attorney's fee when that is not an element of damages being claimed by the plaintiff.
Awarding non-recoverable or non-alleged damages, such as lost income when no wage-loss was alleged in the trial.
A juror who already had made up his mind before hearing the evidence.
A juror who communicated a concealed bias toward one of the parties or the facts. (Although not mentioned by Pollak, this might include a juror's assumption that the defendant has insurance, if that information is not part of the presented evidence, when a bias against insurance companies might exist.)
Averaging of the damages, or agreeing on value in advance of review of the evidence.
The presence of a cellular phone in the jury room, with phone calls' being made in or out.
Disregard for the court's instructions regarding the case.
Use of any outside source materials, even dictionaries, in the jury room.
A juror's explaining the law as he understands it to the other jurors.

Nobody likes a spoiled pickle, and a blow-out verdict is not only green, it's fuzzy, like the crow some adjuster, claim manager, or defense attorney will have to dine upon when that excessive verdict is read to the court. But before rushing to the checkbook, consider the options. Sometimes that crow can be prepared in a more appetizing way. I have even written a cookbook for crow eaters.

Special Reports /

What to Do When the Bottom Falls Out

Related Stories

Recommended For You