Opinion ID: 280900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Acceptance of Verdict

Text: 48 Finally, appellant contends that the trial judge virtually instructed the jury to return a verdict it had already reached before its overnight dispersal. The record itself refutes this completely. After the jury had deliberated all morning of the second day the court questioned the foreman about the ability of the jury to reach a verdict and upon being advised that the jury might not be able to agree on each and every count of the multiple count indictment explained that a mistrial could be declared on those counts upon which the jury was unable to agree and gave them additional time to deliberate with the request that the jury report on any count upon which agreement had been made prior to the overnight dispersal. The pertinent colloquy speaks for itself: 49 The COURT: Mr. Foreman, have you arrived at a verdict, sir? 50 The FOREMAN: We have on Counts Five, Seven, and Eight, sir. 51 The COURT: Counts Five, Seven, and Eight? 52 The FOREMAN: Yes, sir. 53 The COURT: Can you state to the court at this time whether or not you have arrived at those verdicts yesterday afternoon before your dispersal? 54 The FOREMAN: Yes, sir. 55 The COURT: All right, sir, will you present the verdict to the Marshal? 56 (Whereupon, the verdict of the jury was delivered to the court.) 57 The COURT: All right, sir, will the Clerk publish the verdict. 58 There is patently no merit in appellant's adjunctive contention here that the trial court thereby had no authority to accept a partial verdict. Each count of an indictment is an entity, and each verdict rendered on each count is an entity. See Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932); United States v. Russo, 335 F.2d 299, 301, (7th Cir. 1964), cert. den. 379 U.S. 962, 85 S.Ct. 651, 13 L.Ed.2d 556 (1965). 59 The judgment of conviction on Counts Five, Seven, and Eight are 60 Affirmed.