before the verdict, the appellate court overruled the complaint, stating: We believe that it would be wantonly unfair to allow a litigant to take his chances with the jury and later complain of misconduct when he is unhappy with the result. A party may not speculate on the result of a verdict and then for the first time complain of jury misconduct. Id. at 943. The Losiers respond that, unlike the situation in Alamo Carriage, the jury misconduct was witnessed by a non-lawyer employee of the Losiers’ law firm the day the jury returned its verdict, and there is no evidence the misconduct was actually brought to counsel’s attention before the jury returned its verdict. The Losiers cite as support Mercado v. Warner-Lambert Co., 106 S.W.3d 393 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the Losiers have not waived
holding that party did not waive right to trial by jury by requesting directed verdict holding that appellant did not waive right to complain of jury misconduct not witnessed by appellants counsel recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel