Opinion ID: 2328657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure of Trial Court to Deliver Anti-Deadlock Instruction

Text: Johnson next argues that the court's failure to poll the jury and deliver an anti-deadlock instruction to the jury resulted in a coerced verdict. After less than three days of trial, the jury began deliberations on May 9, 1997. Thereafter, the jury sent the court a series of notes. On May 12, the jury's note stated: What happens if `we' cannot agree on all three charges?... Must all three charges be agreed upon? In response to this question, the court instructed the jury to continue and try to agree on all of the charges. At the time you find that you absolutely cannot we'll discuss that at that time. About two hours later the same day, the jury sent another note: We can't come to an agreement? [sic] Perhaps we can all agree by tomorrow. The court dismissed the jury for the day, but did not address the jury's inability to reach a decision. The next day, the jury sent the court another note. This note stated: Can we skip a day, Wednesday and come back Thursday? We still cannot come to a united decision on all three counts. How long before it would be a mistrial? The court responded by telling the jury that, because of scheduling conflicts, the court could not allow the jury to skip a day of deliberations. The court did not respond to the jury's question about a mistrial. On May 14, as mentioned previously, the jury asked for permission to leave early and return the following Monday, and the court granted the request. Finally, on Monday, May 19, the jury deliberated for approximately ten minutes and returned guilty verdicts on all three charges. The trial court has discretion in dealing with jury polls and instructions. Harris v. United States, 622 A.2d 697, 705 n. 14 (D.C.1993). We, therefore, review the trial court's rulings for abuse of that discretion. Id. Johnson alleges that the hints in the jury notes should have indicated to the court that the jury was deadlocked, and the court's failure to give an anti-deadlock instruction ultimately coerced the verdict. We have held that an inquiry into whether a jury verdict was coerced is made from the perspective of the jurors, evaluated in context, and based on several factors. See Harris, 622 A.2d at 701-06. None of the factors we set forth in Harris are present here, and Johnson has not pointed to any of those factors as supporting his contention that the jury was coerced. Because the trial court has the right and duty to urge a jury to work diligently to reach a fair and freely arrived at verdict, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's failure to give an anti-deadlock instruction. [9] Id. at 701.