DocketNumber： 05-2141
Judges： Easterbrook, Manion, Rovner
Filed Date： 10/28/2005
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/5/2024
Order
On remand from our decision of last fall, a jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Plaintiff does not contend that any error occurred in the handling of the evidence or the instructions to the jury. She contends that she is entitled to another trial nonetheless because one of the jurors revealed information that may have led to witness tampering. That contention was never presented to the district court, so it has been forfeited. Moreover, it is not based on any evidence of record, and plaintiffs brief does not contain any citations to evidence (even to a post-trial affidavit) that would support her contentions.
The juror in question did mention the litigation to his wife. The district judge held a brief voir dire and inquired exactly what had been said (the juror expressed surprise that he had been chosen to serve, as he knows the plaintiff). The judge asked whether the juror had said anything else to anyone else; he replied that he had not. Counsel for the plaintiff accepted this answer and did not ask that the juror be replaced. Nothing more was said until plaintiffs appellate brief, and as we have *389 observed the record contains no evidence suggesting that any improprieties have occurred.
Affirmed