Opinion ID: 2433485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Alleged Improper Remarks to the Jury

Text: Nicklasson claims that the trial court made remarks to the jury that diminished the jurors' sense of responsibility, thereby misleading the jury about its role. The challenged comments were: You judge the facts. I'm judge of the law. And when we walk away from here, we're going to say the right thing is done. You'll do that, we'll have absolutely no problem. And then they can do whatever they have to do with the rest of the system, and let me assure you this is the beginning of the system. I have no preconceptions about that. And that's the way it should be. Because, as you've seen, I make decisions in the snap of a finger, and it's hopefully because in the last 30 years I've learned how to snap that finger, but there are other people that are going to be able to look at all this because [the court reporter] is doing her job. She's not just sitting here playing a game. But the job right now is your job and my job. We do everything right. We can feel good about it no matter what happens later. Nicklasson compares these statements to those condemned in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). In Caldwell, the Court reversed a conviction because the trial court told members of the jury that their decision was not the final decision and that the decision you render is automatically reviewable by the Supreme Court. Id. at 342, 105 S.Ct. at 2646-47. The trial judge's comments, in his pre-trial statement to the jury explaining what they would be doing for the next several weeks, do not lessen the jurors' sense of responsibility. Instead, the trial court suggested that the jurors bore a grave responsibility and that they should focus on fulfilling that responsibility without regard to considerations of events that might follow. This is not a Caldwell violation.