Dodging Mistrials With a Mandatory Jury Inquiry Rule
Publication year | 2009 |
I. Introduction
Jurors undoubtedly face difficult, if not seemingly impossible, decisions in the jury room. Deadlocked or hung juries are not uncommon.(fn1) In deciding that a jury is hung and that a mistrial should be declared, a judge must also make a difficult decision. Faced with such a decision, a judge's reasoning is often based solely on a speculative assessment of the jury.(fn2) For instance, a judge might have to determine whether a jury is deadlocked by considering only the fact that the jury deliberated for three days and sent back a single vague note at the end of the third day.(fn3) Armed with only those limited facts, a judge tasked with determining whether a jury is hung, much like the jury itself, faces a seemingly impossible decision.
Judges are not, however, without discretion to use several tools to encourage jurors to reach a decision.(fn4) Although prohibited from expressly coercing jurors, judges may use techniques such as an
In practical terms, this high burden means that, even if a jury writes a note stating that it is deadlocked, a judge cannot declare a mistrial without considering all of the factors that might have influenced the jurors to write that note.(fn11) To declare a mistrial where a jury was not truly deadlocked is not a fair outcome for the parties, the attorneys, the judge, or the jury.(fn12) In Justice Story's words, an outcome not founded on manifest necessity defeats "the ends of public justice."(fn13)
This Comment posits that judges can meet this high burden and definitively determine whether a jury is deadlocked in every case by using a simple tool: a jury inquiry. In its simplest form, a jury inquiry consists of a judge asking the jurors, individually or collectively, whether a verdict can be reached in a reasonable amount of time.(fn14) In this way, a judge can elicit concrete and reliable evidence, directly from the jury, that a mistrial is or is not warranted.(fn15) A jury inquiry is much like jury polling, which is required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(d)(fn16)
Like Rule 31(d), a jury inquiry rule should be discretionary and implemented either at the request of a party or at the court's discretion. Unlike Rule 31(d), however, there are certain circumstances in which a jury inquiry rule should be mandatory, namely, whenever a judge seeks to declare a mistrial due to a hung or deadlocked jury.
In such instances, a mandatory jury inquiry rule is advantageous for a number of reasons. First, an inquiry would give the judge quantitative evidence from which to determine whether further deliberations might overcome a deadlock.(fn18) Accordingly, the judge would have a basis for his decision to either require the jury to continue deliberating or to declare a mistrial and discharge the jury.(fn19) Second, the direct statement from the jury would provide evidence to determine whether a mistrial was declared hastily and without "manifest necessity."(fn20) For example, if a mistrial was appealed, less would be required of an appeals court because, with a direct statement that the jury was deadlocked, there would be little basis upon which to argue that the judge abused his discretion.(fn21) Finally, an inquiry into each defendant and each count could uncover whether the jury has made a unanimous decision as to certain counts and whether the jury has deadlocked as to others.(fn22) Because most jurors do not have legal training, unless advised of Rule 31(b),(fn23) jurors are most likely unaware of their option to declare a partial verdict.(fn24) Where an inquiry reveals that certain counts were decided unanimously, those decisions may be recorded and accepted as partial verdicts.(fn25) Thus, a jury inquiry will lighten judicial dockets by eliminating counts and entire defendants from subsequent proceedings.(fn26)
This Comment considers the concept of a jury inquiry and concludes that, with a mandatory jury inquiry rule, judges will ensure that the public ends of justice are met before a mistrial is declared. Part II of this Comment examines the
Part IV looks into the practicality of jury inquiries. Part IV.A asks whether a mandatory jury inquiry rule should be limited to only multiple defendant cases. Part IV.B considers the form that the rule should take: whether the inquiry should be performed individually or collectively and whether in open court or out of court. Part IV.C sets forth the instruction that a trial judge should use in conducting the inquiry. And Part IV.D once more sets forth the language of the rule as it should be written in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Part V concludes by revisiting the
II. The Practical Effects of the Jury Inquiry Rule in the
Context of the
To demonstrate how a mandatory jury inquiry rule could affect a trial, imagine yourself as a juror in the following scenario. You sit alongside eleven other jurors for nearly two months. Over forty witnesses testify about three defendants and their purported involvement in a twenty-five count indictment. Each defendant was an executive in a complex public company, specializing in a business practice that you knew nothing about prior to the trial. Imagine the difficulty, day in and day out, of not discussing the case with the jurors sitting beside you.
Now imagine that, after nearly two months of silence and small talk, you are suddenly ordered to deliberate. You can rely only on your recollection and possibly some notes you took during the six weeks of testimony, plus various exhibits of financial and accounting data, and a twenty-five count indictment. You have no legal training or background. You know only that you must reach a unanimous verdict. And you know that you have a limited ability to converse with the judge and cannot, under any circumstance, reveal what has transpired in your deliberations.
Finally, imagine that after fewer than four days of deliberation, you and your fellow jurors have decided twenty-four of the twenty-five counts unanimously, but cannot reach consensus on the last count. Looking for guidance, you and your fellow jurors decide to send the judge a note. It is the end of the day. You and your fellow jurors are tired and ready to retire for the evening. The foreperson's note states, quite simply, that the jury is "deadlocked" and would like to go...
To continue reading
Request your trial