Opinion ID: 2320064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury contact during deliberations State v. Byrd and Dean.

Text: In respect of Count Two of the formal complaint, Judge Mathesius admitted that, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on July 22, 2004, while a jury was deliberating in State v. Byrd and Dean and while unaccompanied by either counsel or a court reporter, he entered the jury room to ask the jurors whether they wished to continue deliberating that day or to go home and return in the morning. [2] Judge Mathesius also admitted that he did not inform the prosecutor or defense counsel before entering the jury room, and neither attorney was present as he spoke to the jurors. When Judge Mathesius returned to the courtroom and explained that he had discharged the jury for the day, counsel for defendant Byrd objected: MR. SCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I was downstairs on the second floor waiting with Mr. Schroth [counsel for co-defendant Dean], and I was told you were going upstairs to inquire of the jurors whether they wished to stay or go home. And this was done by you off the record, and you came out and told me that they want to go home. I object to that. It's  THE COURT: All right. You object to that. MR. SCHNEIDER: I also think the jurors should be brought out and dismissed in the presence of the Court and on the record, and in front of the defendants. THE COURT: Thank you. You can do that when you're a judge. I'll do it the way I do it when I'm a judge. . . . After explaining that he would discharge the jury at 4:00 p.m. and that he would take the court reporter with him as he did so, Judge Mathesius did not excuse counsel. Instead, he required that they remain until after the jury was excused. Upon his return to the courtroom, the following colloquy ensued: THE COURT: I've excused the jury, and they're going to return tomorrow 9:00 a.m. All three of you are as well. I'll see you tomorrow morning at 9:00. MR. SCHNEIDER: I'd like to make a motion. If there's going to be communication with the jury, I think it should be only in court. THE COURT: It doesn't sound like a motion. Was there a motion attached to that? MR. SCHNEIDER: That's the motion. I think all of the communications between the Judge and the jury should be in open court on the record. THE COURT: Mr. Schneider, I appreciate very much your motion. The following day, Judge Mathesius explained on the record, outside the presence of the jury, his reasons for communicating with the jury without either counsel or a court reporter present. In short, he explained that, given the age, condition, and availability of the physical facilities in the courthouse, collecting the lawyers and defendants in the courtroom solely to discharge the jury consumed both unnecessary time and the resources incurred in security and transport concerns. In Judge Mathesius's words, it's my concern, first of all, for the security of all concerned, and secondly, for the convenience of all concerned that non-substantive aspects of the trial, i.e., the excusing of the jurors for the day or the excusing of the jurors for lunch might be more readily accomplished without the intervening 30 to 45 minutes that it generally takes to put the whole show together. When Judge Mathesius concluded his lengthy explanation, one of the defense counsel requested leave to respond. Judge Mathesius's response was curt: No. I don't care to hear your response. Respond on the appeal if it's necessary. The jury returned its verdicts later that afternoon, convicting both defendants of an assortment of criminal charges. After the jury was polled on its guilty verdicts, Judge Mathesius addressed the jury directly: Once again, ladies and gentlemen, you have [v]indicated this Court's faith in the jury system. Your verdict has been adequately and amply supported by the evidence. You have deliberated long, and you've deliberated hard. You've overcome disagreements and the strife that necessarily is imposed upon jurors in such critical and difficult decision making. . . . You are the bulwark and the foundation of the jury system in this country and have acquitted it nicely. At the formal hearing before the Advisory Committee, an assistant Mercer County prosecutor appearing as a witness on Judge Mathesius's behalf testified that, in his experience, at the end of the day, sometimes obviously jurors are still deliberating [and] they need to be excused, [therefore, it is the] practice in Mercer County for judges to go in [to the jury room] and excuse those jurors for the day, without counsel being present[,] asserting that judges merely walk into the [jury] room and excuse the jurors and that's it. Judge Mathesius then explained that, due to the configuration of the Mercer County Courthouse and the fact that the defendants were housed in separate detention areas, it would have taken 35 to 45 minutes to return the defendants to the courtroom in order to excuse the jury for the night. Judge Mathesius then admitted that, while his entry into the jury room during deliberations without counsel may be wrong procedurally, . . . it was a practical consideration that I thought over weighed the procedural requirements. Judge Mathesius tendered neither an explanation nor an excuse concerning the colloquy with defense counsel; he readily acknowledged that he did not, in that colloquy, behave in what we can describe as a patient[,] dignified[,] and courteous fashion[.] Finally, Judge Mathesius maintained that his comments to the jury after its verdict did not constitute[] a commendation of the jury[.] In support of that conclusion, Judge Mathesius relied on the following standard closing instruction used in Mercer County for thanking and discharging a trial jury: [3] Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the function that you have performed is one of the most important tasks that you will ever be called upon to fulfill. With the return of your verdict, your service in this case is complete. I know that your stay with us has involved sacrifice on your part. I trust you leave here knowing that you have made a meaningful contribution to the judicial process and hope that you have enjoyed the experience. You have been a serious, attentive and extremely diligent jury. It has been my pleasure to have worked with you. On behalf of everyone in the court room, the citizens of Mercer County and the entire judicial system, I thank you each and every one of you. We greatly appreciate your willingness to serve and your service. You are now discharged. Thank you very much! When you return to the jury room, I would ask you to wait assembled there for a minute so I can thank you in person. In Judge Mathesius's view, his statement to the jury, when viewed in the context of the Mercer County standard closing instructions, constituted a standard couple of lines that are given to the jury so that [they] at least understand and appreciate that their work has been appreciated. It's not a commendation, as I understand it. The Advisory Committee concluded that, as a result of each of these claims  entering the jury room without counsel and off the record, addressing counsel in the colloquy in respect of those events, and commending the jury on its verdict  Judge Mathesius had violated Canons 3A(6), 3A(3), and 3A(10), respectively. Specifically, as to the first claim, the Advisory Committee found that [a] judge has no right to speak to jurors outside the presence of counsel during trial, and certainly not off the record in the jury room. Thus, the Advisory Committee concluded that [b]y entering the jury room outside the presence of counsel before the jury delivered its verdict, [Judge Mathesius] violated Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. In respect of the second claim, the Advisory Committee recognized that Judge Mathesius admit[ted] that his remarks were inappropriate and, for that reason, concluded that Judge Mathesius violated Canon 3A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous to attorneys and others. Finally, the Advisory Committee rejected Judge Mathesius's interpretation of his post-verdict comments to the jury, reasoning that his comment is a commendation for reaching the right decision[,] and concluding that such action violate[s] Canon 3A(10) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict. In the aggregate, the Advisory Committee concluded that Judge Mathesius's actions in respect of Count Two also violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Rule 2:15-8(a)(6).