Opinion ID: 506212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Invasion of jury privacy and ex parte communication

Text: 34 Appellant Barrington 12 asserts that jury deliberations were invaded when, on Friday, January 9, 1987, the trial judge received a partially completed verdict form from the presiding juror for safekeeping over the weekend. The court made a memorial as to this event in an order which sealed the form. 35 Barrington first urges that appellants were prejudiced because the jury must have considered themselves bound by the partial verdict--without any power to alter or change their tentative views. He offers no evidence or cogent argument in support of this contention. Second, Barrington claims that the incident constituted proceedings outside the presence of defendants in contravention of Rule 43(a), Fed.R.Crim.P. Since safekeeping was the only purpose of the court's action, this was not a court proceeding requiring the presence of the accused. Third, he complains that the requirement of Rule 31(a) that jury verdicts be returned to the judge in open court was violated, and cites various cases holding that a judge's questioning a jury during the course of its deliberations regarding its numerical division is reversible error. Appellant, however, offers no evidence that any portion of a jury verdict was returned to the judge or that the court engaged in such questioning. The form was simply a jury worksheet at that time. We find no error. 36