Cite? I’d like to read about cases where that happened, and the rules that allow it.
Jury questions during deliberations are common. Typically the judge says “go back and read the instructions.” Sometimes additional guidance is offered. I’ve never seen a trial “reopened” and not sure what that would look like. Some jurisdictions allow testimony to be read back during deliberations by the court reporter. (California, for example) But I can’t imagine a US court allowing for more evidence to be presented after the trial is concluded.
There are specific laws that are definitely unfair but a trial court is generally not the place where such ‘judicial review’ takes place. That occurs in appellate courts, potentially going all the way to the Supreme Court if it is a fundamental question of constitutionality.
Cases are occasionally reopened; it is atypical but not unheard of. Juries often pass questions back to the judge, usually with regard to clarifying the judge’s instructions, but the judge could, if they desired, reopen the trial process after delibrations to address unresolved concerns. I don’t have an a specific example (hence why I described it as “exceptional”) but while not authoritative, here is a forum with multiple purported attorneys in consensus that the broad authority of the judge to alter normal procedure prior to delivery would allow for resumption of the trial after deliberations have started. I can imagine potentially challenges upon appeal to such an unusual decision and the potential it might have to adversely influence the jury in the case of a guilty verdict.
Stranger
That is the very hallmark of jury nullification. That the citizen can decide if he particular law or the specific application of the law in the case should not apply.
They all seem to think it’s highly unlikely and problematic.
In 27 1/2 years of trying cases as a federal prosecutor and as a defense attorney, I can recall several occasions when the State was permitted to re-open its case in chief after the defense case (as opposed to offering rebuttal evidence, which the State can always do), but have never participated in a trial in which either side was permitted to offer evidence after closing arguments and I think that would present some serious due process issues aside from any statutory and regulatory limitations.
I can imagine that an exhibit might be formally admitted when it was left out by mistake, but not much beyond that.
Jury nullification is not a legal principle (at least not one acknowledged by any court authority) and is consisted a a discretionary act of civil disobedience.
See United States v. Kleinman in the US 9th Circuit Court rejecting the notion of jury nullification.
This isn’t to say that it doesn’t have its place; as the LLI article cited above briefly describes, it was used by colonial juries as protest against overreach of the Crown, and also by abolitionist juries to defy the Fugitive Slave Clause, but expect that if you avowedly engage in jury nullification as a jury member you may be placed in contempt of court by the judge.
I don’t disagree with that; just that it is legally possible within the discretion of the presiding judge.
Stranger
In his 2001 review of the English Criminal Courts, Lord Justice Auld recommended that ‘it should be declared, by statute law if necessary, that the jury has no power to acquit in defiance of law and of the evidence’. No action appears to have been taken on this, so far.
I’ve been on a good number of juries over the years, and I’ve been in deliberations about 8 times. Not all the other jurors I served with were necessarily brainiacs, but I always came away impressed by everyone’s strong inclinations to do a good and fair job. I don’t think I’d fear a jury trial for myself…unless I was in another state.
As opposed to, as an example, Judge Granville in the Young Thug case. As in my story above, if you get a judge that just refuses to be impartial you are massively fucked and the system protects them.
Thankfully, I was never in that situation.