The impatient jury
Juries are mercurial, we know. Juries are like a black box, we are told. Juries usually convict on Fridays, is another belief. But juries are also comprised of people and people are impatient. People, who are on juries, have plans with their lives and jury duty presents a significant obstruction. Just take a look at this google search for “jury pressure”.
Earlier today, I was leafing through a transcript of a trial in which evidence had lasted for almost twice as long as was originally promised the jurors. Jurors had been told, during selection, that evidence would last for a few days and they would have the case “in a week, or slightly later at the most”. Now it was going on 2 and a half weeks. Jurors had plans.
They sent notes. On Thursday, right before closing arguments: “We’re worried because if our deliberation goes into next week, a lot of us are going to have problems.” and “We want to know how long this will take because we didn’t expect it to take this long and some of us have commitments.”
The judge in this particular case didn’t seem to think there was much of a problem and told them: “It will take as long as it will take. You were selected to see this through to the end. Please adjust. Thank you.”
The judge did admonish the jury that their scheduling conflicts were not to influence their decision. But is that possible? Will juror #4, who has a vacation to Bora-Bora planned for Wednesday, willingly deliberate for days and reach a legal verdict? Will juror #1, whose wife has to go back to work on Monday and has no one to watch his kids, be a thoughtful and active participant in the process?
What of the defendant? Will the defendant get a fair trial? Will the process be wholesome? Will he get shortchanged?
What can one do? Ask for a mistrial? How would you handle this situation?
Image license info here.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on October 17, 2007 at 7:39 pm, and is filed under juries. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
We jump up and down, demand a mistrial, scream and yell about how the jury will be pressured into conviction, and the judge will give an Allen charge.
The jury system was intended to be a fundamental protection for the accused, back in the days when people have a healthy skepticism about government power and abuse. Those days are long gone, as we are all painfully aware, and we gaze into the eyes of jurors and think, can any juror appreciate his or her role of putting the State to the test? The presumption of innocence is just an empty phrase to be mouthed when convenient.
It’s one tough uphill battle to persuade a jury to acquit, and if anyone thinks that the burden of proof is really on the prosecution, they’re fooling themselves.
about 4 years ago
Make a record and move for a mistrial.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="6962"]Make a record and move for a mistrial.[/quote]
I think I would also ask for an evidentiary hearing. Put the jurors under oath and make them spell out their problems.
Or is that what you meant by “make a record”?
about 4 years ago
Do you have a hearing like that in CT? I want one too, where I get to question the jurors during deliberations. Where can I buy one?
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="6964"]Do you have a hearing like that in CT? I want one too, where I get to question the jurors during deliberations. Where can I buy one?[/quote]
Haha. No, it’s not a hearing per se, but just an offer of proof. If there is an indication of juror bias or jury tampering then sometimes the court will question the jurors to determine whether there is reason to declare a mistrial.
I was saying that I’d ask for the same here.
As to your question, the “subscribe to comments” check box had been automatically selected. I have fixed that now.
about 4 years ago
Obviously, this judge is an arrogant buffoon. His “tough s h * t” message is the wrong way a public servant should treat free citizens haled into court to do their civic duty. He should have apologized and taken responsibility for the delay, appealed to their sense of civic duty, offered to write letters to bosses etc. to help the jury members out.
I am sympathetic to your issues with this (believe it or not). As a practical matter, the problems are just to speculative to get tons of reversals here.
And I suspect if the judge did make such an offer and accept responsibility, it would have gone a long way to making sure that the jurors deliberated fairly.
about 4 years ago
I sometimes file a motion before trial that the court adjourn at reasonable times, because of the tendency of some Judge to want to work past 6:00 p.m. to finish a case. Some people have other commitments, and pressuring Jurors, sometimes results in insufficient deliberations.
I think even giving an “Allen” Charge too early can result in pressure to convict. I believe, that giving an Allen charge usually results in a conviction so I usually object to an Allen charge. Usually, but not always, pressuring the jury results in a conviction, so make a record for an appeal. Even if no reversal, some courts might allow a modification or reduction of sentence. Always preserve the record, preserve your client’s rights. You are your client’s main source of hope. No record, no error.