Opinion ID: 765913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The trial court's decision to proceed with 11 jurors

Text: 25 Defendant-appellant Lambert asserts that the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a mistrial upon excusing juror Mary Adam (Adam) for just cause and proceeding, in spite of the defendants' objections, with eleven jurors. He argues that the district court's contact with Adam violated his constitutional rights; that the district court's investigation into Adam's stated reasons for her unavailability was insufficient; and that once Adam was excused, an alternate juror should have been substituted. We review a district court's decision to discharge a juror and proceed with eleven jurors for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Patterson, 23 F.3d 1239, 1252 (7th Cir. 1994). 26 On Friday, December 6, 1996, Lambert's jury was instructed and the two remaining alternate jurors were discharged. At 1:20 p.m., that same day, the jury began deliberating Lambert's fate, but were unable to reach a verdict by 4:30 p.m. Accordingly, they were told to go home for the weekend and to return at 9:30 a.m. the following Monday, December 9, 1996. On Monday morning, before the jury reconvened, the trial judge informed the prosecuting attorney, the defendants, and their attorneys, that a juror, Mary Adam, had left a message on the district court's answering machine in chambers stating that she would not be present because there was a custody hearing regarding her daughter's children. In the presence of Lambert and his attorney, the court summarized the nature of the message, stating: 27 [i]n any event, the message that was left essentially is as follows: That she has to attend a custody hearing today because DCFS is trying to take the kids away-- this is plural. She apologizes for causing you a problem, and says I can replace her and the hearing is in Kane county. 28 After explaining the nature of the message to the parties, the district court and all parties present, including Lambert and his attorney, agreed that the court should determine whether Adam could continue to deliberate and the following discussion took place: 29 THE COURT: Well, I did not call her. Do I have your permission to call her and at least get a better handle on the situation? 30 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 31