Bruce v. Smith, Cross-Appellee v. Pitman Manufacturing Company, A.B. Chance Company, Cross-Appellants

952 F.2d 1400 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Bruce V. SMITH, Plaintiff/Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. PITMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A.B. Chance Company, et al., Defendant/Appellees Cross-Appellants. Nos. 89-55539, 89-55610. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 6, 1992. * Decided Jan. 15, 1992. Before FARRIS, NOONAN and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Bruce Smith appeals the district court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing or a new trial because of juror handling of an admitted exhibit. Smith argues that the jury's experiment improperly influenced their verdict. We affirm. 3 We have no enunciated a bright line test to determine whether a juror's experiment was improper. Instead, we review experiments to determine their possible effect upon the jury's verdict. All admissible experiments must be conducted under conditions similar to those surrounding the accident. Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1057 (9th…