motion for new trial. First, Glover did not seek to obtain a juror interview pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(h), but instead simply sought a new trial based upon its allegation of juror miscon duct. A party generally must establish juror misconduct through a juror interview before being entitled to receive a new trial. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97, 100 n. 1 (Fla.1991). Second, without a transcript of the hearing below or a stipulation of relevant facts, it cannot be determined whether the trial court was presented with this claim of misconduct. Also, no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the jury foreman was the same person as the person named in the foreclosure suit. See Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So.2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>). Glover’s final claim is that the trial court
holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause holding that where a nonblack juror with no prior jury experience was empaneled the proffered reason for striking a black juror for lack of jury experience was not genuine and therefore was pretextual holding that the court has a duty to resolve the issue of prejudice arising out of jury misconduct even though the defense could have requested a voir dire examination of the juror in its motion to disqualify holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated