Iowa Supreme Court Blesses Use of "Verdict Urging Instruction" to Deadlocked Jury
In a murder case captioned State v. Church, a deliberating jury sent a note to the court saying they are deadlocked 11 to 1. The trial judge (despite objection from the defendant) instructed the jury to keep deliberating with these key words:
Each juror should listen to the arguments of other jurors with a disposition to be convinced by them; and if the members of the jury differ in their views of the evidence, such difference of opinion should cause them all to scrutinize the evidence more closely and to reexamine the grounds of their problem. Your duty is to decide the issues of fact which have been submitted to you if you can conscientiously do so. In conferring, you should lay aside all mere pride of opinion and should bear in mind that the jury room is no place for espousing and maintaining, in a spirit of controversy, either side of a cause. The aim ever to be kept in view is the truth as it appears from the evidence, examined in light of the instructions of the Court.
The state supreme court concluded the defendant failed to establish coercion or potential coercion of the jury's verdict. It concluded the content of the instruction was not coercive, the timing of the jury's verdict did not evidence coercion, and the jury poll did not evidence coercion.
ABA Undertakes Updating "Principles for Juries & Jury Trials"
"3 Factors That May Complicate Jury Selection in Trump Trials"
What to Do When Jury Expresses Fear That Defendant's Cohorts Are Filming Them?
In United States v. Wathen, the federal 9th circuit reviewed a claim that the trial judge should have terminated jury deliberations after he received evidence that jurors were discussing an incident in which a person believed to be affiliated with the defendant may have been filming the jurors outside the courthouse. The court questioned each juror individually and received assurances from them that the incident would not affect their deliberations in any way. Later, the court received a handwritten note from a juror seeking clarification about that same incident. The court, with the agreement of the parties, concluded that a response (1) stating that there was no reason for any juror to be concerned about their personal safety and (2) inviting any juror to express concerns directly to the court would be a sufficient response to the note. The appellate panel concluded the judge’s actions were prudent and there was no need to question each juror individually, a second time, particularly where no party requested it.