Opinion ID: 1804781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: comments of the trial court

Text: During jury voir dire, the trial court made the following remarks to the jury: We have the adversary system that means that there is a lawyer on each sideor the lawyers on each side are to do anything they can to win so long as it is consistent with the truth and with the law. And that's a part of our jury system, we believe that if both do everything they can to win, that twelve people from this community can do the best job of picking out what the truth is and arriving at a just verdict. And we have worked with that, find the juries really are very good at coming up with the right verdict at least, I don't know how they get there, but people that work are very satisfied with what jurors do. I have never said this before but I want you all to know the Supreme Court is not going to reverse your decision. Your decision is final in this matter. Now, if I give you the wrong law or I make a mistake or the laws make a mistake because we haven't given you the right information it might be reversed, and it might come back. But the Supreme Court doesn't second guess your finding of what the facts are, and how you apply the law to those facts. So that's the other thing that I wanted to tell you. It's a juror's duty to follow the law ... and make a decision under the law even if they disagree with the law. If you disagree with the law, we have the legislature, that kind of system, to change the law. It's not a juror's duty to change that law. Defendant contends these remarks prejudiced him by giving the members of the jury the impression that even if they did not follow the law, their decision would stand. We have stated that trial courts are to refrain from commenting on the evidence or making remarks prejudicial to a litigant or calculated to influence the minds of the jury. State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369, 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990). However, a defendant must demonstrate that a trial court's conduct, whether action or inaction during the proceeding against the defendant, prejudiced or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the defendant. Id. Although we believe the district court's statements, taken as a whole, are prejudicial, we believe that in the light of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, the court's error is a harmless one. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).