Opinion ID: 2177003
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Taking of the Jury's Verdict

Text: During jury deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court stating that it had reached a decision. In open court, the foreperson returned a verdict of guilty on each charge, for each defendant. At appellant's request, the court polled the jury, and the first six jurors agreed with the verdicts as stated by the foreperson. The seventh juror stated that he did not. The trial court immediately sent the jury back to the jury room, instructing them not to discuss the case further until they heard from the court. Counsel for both appellants moved for a mistrial, claiming that the resumption of deliberations would have a coercive effect on the jury. The trial court allowed the jury to continue to deliberate. Before doing so, in an effort to make it clear that any juror could change his or her vote, the trial court reinstructed them substantially in accordance with CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, No. 2.93 (3d ed. 1978). [4] The jurors deliberated until excused for the day. The next morning, counsel for appellant requested that the jury be instructed further with the instruction given earlier and the following additional paragraph: I specifically instruct you that it is not absolutely necessary that you reach verdicts and you will not be compelled to deliberate further if you conclude and indicate to me that further deliberations will not be useful. The trial court denied the request. Following further deliberations, the jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty for each appellant. After their respective sentencings, Nero and Elliott noted these appeals.