In this trial of Oakland police officers accused of violating civil rights etc. the jury has been deliberating for more than 4 months, following 8 months of testimony. The jury has told the judge that they are hopelessly deadlocked, but the judge has insisted that they keep going. It seems to me that the judge is inviting the jurors to compromise their oath and conscience in order to get back to their lives. These people have been serving on this jurty for more than a year now. What do you think? Assuming eventually there is a conviction, do you think it would be upheld on appeal?
I can’t even understand how a trial could be allowed to last for eight months.
On the Title Question;
A great film classic “12 Angry Men” for me explores this question to its fullest. Not to ruin the movie, but the movie makes an argument for letting each juror tell his “side” of the case heard.
That being said, and never having been on a jury (Im 20 y/o and as of yet have not recieved a notice) I guess a jury should be forced to continue as long as on juror has remains silent with his or her opinions.
Until they run out of Listerine Mint Pocket Packs!
There is no bright-line test.
A judge may deliver what’s called an “Allen charge” to try to encourage a deadlocked jury to come to a verdict.
The charge generally follows along the lines of: “Considerable time and expense has preceed this point. There is no reason to believe a second jury would be any better able than you are to reach a verdict. Both the accused and the Commonwealth will suffer if a second trial becomes necessary. While you should continue to vote in accord with your view of the evidence, you should also renew your deliberations and listen to your fellow jurors, and examine the evidence anew.”
If I recall correctly, there are four tests on appeal to determine whether an Allen charge was permissible or whether it was unduly coercive, as the OP wonders about:
[ul]
[li]Form of the instruction[/li][li]Time of deliberation following the charge[/li][li]Total time of jury deliberation[/li][li]General indicia of coerciveness or pressure on the jury[/li][/ul]
That list, and approach, seems reasonable to me.
- Rick
I imagine this isn’t usually a problem. A friend of mine sat on a personal injury case’s jury, and he said the other members were ready to just throw some money at the plaintiff and get out in time for lunch, until he, as an occupational therapist, managed to focus them on a few things that lowered the amount.
It’s my personal opinion the vote shouldn’t have to be unanimous. If I were drafting it to be what I wished, I’d say that in a deadlocked jury with even a single vote to acquit, the court should grant an acquittal in a criminal case. In civil cases, the court should find against the plaintiff in a deadlocked jury, at least if a poll of the jury finds a majority in the defendant’s favor. Whichever party has the burden of proof should have to convince the jury, which is the plaintiff or the state, and if the jury isn’t convinced then grant no relief to the plaintiff nor punishment to the criminal defendant.
Legally or IMO? IMO, the longer it goes, then the more persuasive people will win out, but would that make grounds for appeal, since it won’t be any different than a regular jury is faced with. But I don’t know, and I think they should stay until they decide, since I don’t see how it adds any pressure in anyone’s favour.
I’m of several minds on the issue. I served on a jury for a personal injury case (car accident); liability had already been admitted by the defendant, and the trial was purely over damages. The injuries were not particularly severe; the plaintiff had had a few months of chiropractic treatment, but was an older guy with preexisting back problems, so he hadn’t recovered 100% (maybe 80%). He was retired, so there were no lost wages involved.
Eleven of us wanted to pay the guy enough to cover his medical expenses, with maybe a little extra for the hassle (after lawyer fees). The whole case was worth less than $20K, which would have been covered by the defendant’s auto insurance. (And may I express amazement at the cluelessness of the insurance company which apparentlly managed to appoint such a clueless attorney?)
The twelfth juror though he should get nothing at all. Why, you may ask? Nobody was disputing the cause, nature, or extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. His response? Because the guy had seen a chiropractor instead of an orthopedist and/or physical therapist! Finally, I flat-out asked him: “Look, the guy did what he thought was the right thing to treat his chronic pain. Do you not believe that he was in pain and did so in good faith? Or do you just have a problem with chiropractors? Would we even be having this talk if he’d seen an orthopedist?” He admitted the issue was the chiropractor, not the extent of the injuries. The rest of us just rolled our eyes but didn’t say anything, because we’d all realized by then that this was one stubborn guy, and if we backed him into a corner we’d be deliberating Lord only knows how long.
Finally the rest of us basically browbeat him into the following arrangement: we would each write down a proposed verdict amount on a slip of paper, and have the foreman calculate an average. The rest off us basically just tweaked our figures a bit upward to cover for him, but I fully believe we would have been deadlocked if it had been an either/or type of case.
It’s that sort of thing that leads me to question whether a required unanimous verdict of laypeople is a good idea at all, except that the alternatives all suck worse. And I certainly see the issues being different in civil cases rather than criminal cases.
[hijack]
I work in a museum, and recently, I came across some documents containing our town’s laws as of 1810. One stated that juries should be locked into the upper room of the court house, without food or water, and allowed no “candle nor fire” until a verdict had been reached.
I assume justice moved swiftly in those days.
[/hijack]
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/091903ap_nw_police_scandal.html [/ur] This article says that:
If that’s true, then the jurors are not completely decided, or unwilling to change their minds. There may be hope yet.
[Hijack]
How are jurors, who have been on a trial for over one year, supposed to pay their rent or mortgage on the stipend that jurors get?
[/hijack]
I don’t see how further deliberations past a few days are in the interest of justice; after that, it becomes a battle of wills, rather than a pursuit of the truth, and is merely extorting a change from the jury.
"There is no reason to believe a second jury would be any better able than you are to reach a verdict. " My response to that would be that if a DA wishes to start a new trial, despite a hung jury being the most likely result, that’s his fault, not mine. My responsibility as a jury is to render what I consider a fair verdict, not to look out for the financial interests of the government.
I think that too much emphasis is put on getting either an acquittal or a conviction. Yes, that should be the goal, but a jury that reaches neither hasn’t “failed”; they did exactly what the were supposed to do. In chess, if both players are reduced to just a king, they stop playing. They don’t just keep at it, saying “maybe if we play long enough, we’ll reach checkmate”. A draw is a draw, and a hung jury is a hung jury. Just because the trial did not reach the desired conclusion, that doesn’t mean the trial isn’t over.
I agree with your premise and my response to the judge would be: “Your Honor, not guilty”.