Opinion ID: 331634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Elicitation of Verdict from Jury--

Text: 29 Defendant also assigns as error the action of the trial judge in encouraging unanimity after a negative response by a juror during the poll of the jury. The following colloquy occurred during the poll of the jury: 30 THE CLERK: Thank you. You may be seated. Mrs. Laverne P. Grey. Was the verdict as published your verdict? 31 MRS. GREY: No. But then-- 32 THE CLERK: Is it now your verdict? 33 MRS. GREY: Yes. 34 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Did you agree to the verdict? 35 MRS. GREY: But he said was it first my--my first-- 36 THE COURT: Okay. Ask her the question again. 37 THE CLERK: Was the verdict as published, as I read it, your verdict? 38 MRS. GREY: Yes. 39 THE CLERK: Is it now your verdict? 40 MRS. GREY: Yes. 41 Counsel for the defendant objected to acceptance of the verdict under these circumstances, after which the court again addressed the juror in question: 42 THE COURT: I understand the answer of the juror to indicate that at some stages in the proceedings she had a different opinion and may have voted differently. 43 Now I will ask you. Was the verdict at the time of the final vote, final deliberation, the final verdict; was it your verdict and did you concur in it? 44 MRS. GREY: Yes. 45 THE COURT: Do you now concur in it? 46 MRS. GREY: Yes. 47 THE COURT: All right. 48 Defendant cites United States v. Sexton, 456 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1972) and United States v. Edwards, 469 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1972), in support of his contention that, following this colloquy, the jury should have been required to retire and give further consideration. We find the cited cases clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Sexton, the court had virtually forced a juror to make a decision in open court by asking a juror, who stated that he had not voted either way, whether the verdict of the jury was his verdict. In Edwards, the juror stated that the jury's verdict was her verdict, but that she was still in doubt. Rather than inquire into the juror's statement of doubt, the trial court merely asked again if the verdict was hers. In this case, it seems clear that the juror had simply misunderstood the first question and had no doubts about the verdict she gave. There is a distinction between the conduct of a trial judge who attempts to obtain clarity and that of a trial judge who attempts to coerce a final verdict, even if that verdict is not the product of free choice by each of the jurors. We also note that following its second questioning of the juror, the court asked if there was anything further to be taken up in this matter and defense counsel answered 'no,' declining to request that the jury retire for further deliberation. 49 Affirmed.