Opinion ID: 2173725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal of Mistrial for Alleged Jury Coercion

Text: Defendant finally asks us to reverse his conviction on the grounds that the trial justice erred by failing to declare a mistrial when it became apparent that the jury was having trouble reaching a verdict. As evidence that the final verdict was tainted by coercion, defendant points to the fact, noted by the court reporter in the transcript, that one of the jurors began to cry after the verdict had been announced and the jury polled. The jury commenced its deliberations at 3:45 p. m. on the fourth day of trial. At 7:00 p. m. the trial justice sent the following note to the jury: Do you need something else, or are you deadlocked and unable to reach a verdict? The jury responded that due to the lack of evidence they could not reach a verdict at that time. At 8:00 p. m. the jury sent word that they were deadlocked. Upon receiving notice of the jury's predicament, the trial justice sought advice of counsel, Should I suggest to them that they give it one more try to see if they can resolve it, or what? Defense counsel responded that he did not know, and the State indicated a wish that the jury try one more time. The following exchange then took place: THE COURT: . . . The last message we have is that you [the jury] are deadlocked. Is there any possible chance that if you were to discuss it a little more that there could be some chance that you might adjust your differences andDo you want to give it another try? FOREMAN: Yes, there might be. THE COURT: Why don't we try it a little while longer and see if anything does develop. If you can, it would be appreciated. If you cannot come to an agreement, you cannot. Why don't you retire and let us know. Thank you. Some twenty-five minutes later the jury returned a guilty verdict. Defense counsel then requested that the jury be polled. The entire transcript record of what then happened is as follows: (The jury is polled by the Clerk. [8] After the polling of the jury, Juror number 3 begins to cry) Under these circumstances defendant contends the trial justice should have declared a mistrial. Completely lacking, however, is any indication that defense counsel ever moved for a mistrial, either at the time the jury was sent back or at the time it was polled. The record shows just the contrary, i.e., that defense counsel's attitude was at most ambivalent in regard to the trial justice's decision to ask the jury to try one more time. Furthermore, the trial justice's conduct falls well within the American Bar Association standards relating to jury trials, specifically approved by this court in State v. White, Me., 285 A.2d 832, 838 (1972). See ABA Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury, § 5.4, p. 332 (1974). Of specific relevance here is section 5.4(b) of those standards, which states: If it appears to the court that the jury has been unable to agree, the court may require the jury to continue their deliberations and may give or repeat an instruction as provided in subsection (a). The court shall not require or threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals. (Emphasis added) In the instant case, the trial justice went to considerable length to ascertain the opinions of both counsel and the jury foreman before sending the jury back. He further instructed the jury that if they could not reach a verdict, so be it. In light of defense counsel's failure to move for a mistrial, the absence of any evidence tying the juror's crying to undue coercion, and the trial justice's obvious compliance with our decision in State v. White, supra , we are drawn to the inescapable conclusion that there was no error in the justice's failure to declare a mistrial.