NCJ Number
186598
Date Published
1999
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This article discusses judicial misconduct during jury deliberations.
Abstract
During the jury deliberation process the judge ministers to the jury's personal needs, controls the deliberation schedule, facilitates review of evidence, answers jury questions about legal and factual issues, reiterates legal instructions, investigates allegations of irregularities, and determines the overall pace and extent of deliberations. Two principal kinds of improper judicial behavior can occur during jury deliberations: judicial conduct that attempts to pressure a jury to reach a verdict, and judicial participation in private, ex parte communications with jurors. Appellate courts carefully scrutinize deadlock instructions to determine whether the content or timing of the instructions was coercive. The courts also examine whether other coercive language might have induced a verdict that was the product not of conscientious agreement on the merits but, rather, of the pressure of time constraints and continued confinement. Although the standards are not uniform, Federal and State appellate courts generally examine the judge-jury interaction on a case-by-case basis, under the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether there was actual prejudice or a clear potential for prejudice. Notes