Opinion ID: 460221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jury poll

Text: 39 O'Bryant's final contention is that the court improperly polled the jury. After the verdict was announced, the trial judge asked each juror, Was that your verdict in all respects? O'Bryant argues that the judge should have asked each juror, Is that your verdict in all respects? Such an instruction would have enabled a juror uncomfortable with his or her verdict in the jury room to change the verdict in open court. 40 We find this argument more semantic than legal. Although the latter instruction is preferable to the former, the form of jury polling is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Mangieri, 694 F.2d 1270, 1282 (D.C.Cir.1982); United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 737, 746 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 408, 54 L.Ed.2d 285 (1977). Absent expression of uncertainty as to the verdict by one or more of the jurors, no abuse of discretion is committed by refusing to poll the jury a second time. Lustig, supra at 746. Here, no re-polling of the jury was required where the trial judge noted that he had detected no hint of hesitance on the part of any member of the jury which would cause me to question in any way the need for further polling. Hence, we reject O'Bryant's final allegation of error. 41 We AFFIRM the convictions.