Opinion ID: 762565
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unanimity of Sentencing Jury

Text: 85 Mapes also claims that the jury that sentenced him to death was not unanimous as required by Ohio law. He argues that when the trial judge polled the jurors, juror Chatman equivocated as to whether the guilty verdict was her verdict, and hinted at coercion. Before setting forth verbatim the trial court's exchange with juror Chatman, we shall examine Ohio case precedent on the subject. 86 When a juror indicates reservations about a verdict, or there is a potential lack of unanimity, Ohio law appears to require further inquiry on the part of the trial judge. In State v. Brown, 110 Ohio App. 57, 168 N.E.2d 419 (1953), for instance, a juror responded, when polled: May I tell the truth? ... I went with the rest because I was the only one left. Id. at 420. Shortly thereafter, the following occurred: 87 [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I move to permit her to tell what happened. 88 The Court: No. No, not entitled to tell what happened. No. She hasn't any right to tell what happened. 89 [Defense Counsel]: If it isn't her verdict, do you want her to so state? 90 The Court: I want her to state. 91 [The juror]: Yes, but I have told you-- 92 The Court: All right. It is. It either is or isn't. 93 . . . . . 94 [Defense Counsel]: Just a moment, Your Honor, I move that said juror number two be permitted to state to you just what she was going to state, that is, that she voted yes for guilt, but it is not her verdict. That is what she wants to tell. I think she should be permitted to let the record show that. This is a serious-- 95 The Court: I do not expect to ask the juror that. I do not think I have any right to. 96 [Defense Counsel]: Will you let her tell? 97 The Court: No. 98 . . . . . 99 The court will accept your verdict. The jury is discharged. 100 Id. at 420-21. After noting that, in Ohio, unanimity is required in a criminal trial, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction because there was no unequivocal assent by the juror to the verdict. Id. at 422. Although the trial court was correct to prohibit the juror from trying to explain her verdict, the court had a duty to ensure that the verdict was truly unanimous. Because a juror may change his mind between the jury room and the court room, a trial court must either interrogate a juror who equivocates about his answer, or direct the jury to retire for further deliberation. 101 In a later case, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a juror's ambiguous statements did not require reversal of the conviction. See State v. Fields, 176 N.E.2d 845, 849-50 (Ohio Ct.App.1960). Although the precise dialogue is not provided in the court's opinion, it appears that one juror cast some doubt about her verdict by saying that, while she agreed to have the foreman sign the verdict form, she was reluctant to give her consent. However, when the jury was polled a second time, she stated definitely that it was her verdict. She was given full opportunity to say whether it was or was not her verdict, and ultimately and unambiguously chose the former. Thus, no error occurred. Id. 102 In finding no error in the jury verdict in Mapes's case, the federal magistrate judge relied on Emmert v. State, 127 Ohio St. 235, 187 N.E. 862 (1933). In that case, after ten of the jurors had claimed the guilty verdict as theirs, the final two jurors equivocated. 103 By the Court (to Juror Miller): Q. Mrs. Miller, is this verdict which has been returned in open court your verdict? A. Well, I didn't want to sign it that way. 104 Q. What is that? A. I didn't want to sign it that way. 105 Q. Is it your verdict? A. I signed it; Yes, sir. 106 Q. It is? A. I signed it. 107 Q. What is that? A. I signed the verdict. 108 Q. And it is your verdict? A. Well, I suppose if I signed it it would be. 109 Q. I want to know if that is your verdict now. You ought to know if it is or not; is that your verdict? A. Well, I don't know.    110 Q. Is it not your verdict? A. In my heart I don't feel entirely satisfied with it. 111 Q. You say that it is not your verdict? A. Well, I suppose you could call it that. 112 Q. What is that? A. I suppose you could call it that. 113 By the Court: Q. How about you Mrs. Leiter? A. Mine was because the majority rules is all. 114 Q. I don't want to know the majority rule, I want to know whether that is your verdict? A. It is my signature and my verdict; yes. (Thereupon counsel confer with court at bench.) 115 By the Court: Q. Mrs. Miller, we are a little confused as to your attitude. I should like to ask you this question in a larger form, but I am compelled to ask you in the language of the statute. Is or is not this verdict your verdict? A. Yes; it is. 116 Id. at 863 (emphasis added). The state supreme court held that the trial court had not erred, noting that both jurors were given ample opportunity to disclaim the verdict, but instead had ultimately affirmed the guilty finding. Id. 117 In Mapes's case, the trial court asked each juror, Is this your verdict? Every juror responded affirmatively, except for June Chatman. The transcript of the jury poll reveals the following: 118 [THE COURT:] ... The question I am going to ask you is, is this your verdict, and if it is you say, yes. 119 . . . . . 120 THE COURT: June Chatman. June Chatman. 121 MRS. CHATMAN: This is the verdict? 122 THE COURT: The one that we just read. 123 MRS. CHATMAN: Yes. 124 Defense counsel then asked for a repoll, which the court granted. This time, when the other jurors again repeated their original responses, Mrs. Chatman hesitated: 125 THE COURT: June Chatman. 126 MRS. CHATMAN: I have to say yes or no? 127 THE COURT: Yes, you have to say yes or no. It is yes or no. Did you sign these? 128 MRS. CHATMAN: I signed them, yes. 129 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor. Could we ask whether or not these were her verdicts? 130 THE COURT: Are these your verdicts, Mrs. Chatman? 131 MRS. CHATMAN: It's to me, it's the State's verdict. 132 THE COURT: Wait a second. Please be seated, [defense counsel]. Did you sign this verdict? 133 MRS. CHATMAN: Yes, I did. 134 THE COURT: Okay. Londell Smith, please. 135 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor. It is not whether she signed it, is it her verdict?THE COURT: Please be seated. It is sufficient for this Court. Londell Smith, please. 136 MR. SMITH: Yes. 137 Almost certainly, Mapes's trial court erred in accepting Mrs. Chatman's verdict. Although Mrs. Chatman seemed to assent to the verdict the first time she was polled, clearly she did not do so the second time. As the Ohio cases discussed above demonstrate, a juror may indicate her assent to a guilty verdict, but when the assent is conditional or hints at coercion, the trial judge is obligated to inquire further. Mrs. Chatman admitted to signing the verdict forms; however, this is insufficient under Brown. A juror may change her mind at any time before the verdict is entered, and that is what may have happened here. Mrs. Chatman's assent, if given at all, was not unequivocal. At the very least, the trial court was required to confirm with Mrs. Chatman that the guilty verdict was hers, or to send the jury back to deliberate further. 138 Emmert does not save the error, but rather seems to confirm it. In that case, the jurors equivocated, and the trial court properly inquired further. Although the preferred resolution probably would have been to send the jurors back to deliberate further, the court avoided the worst resolution, which was to enter the guilty verdict based on the verdict form alone. After questioning by the trial court, which the Ohio Supreme Court noted was not coercive, both Emmert jurors unambiguously assented to the verdict. 139 Here, Mrs. Chatman equivocated, she was not questioned further, and her verdict was accepted based on the fact that she had signed the form. 140 As with the other trial errors we have discussed above, however, this assignment of error has been forfeited unless appellate counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to raise it--a matter we shall address in due course. 141