Court Opinion

ID: 9883919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:26:00.990622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:33.163809
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
The thrust of the appeal was aimed at the alleged jury misconduct, that is, that one or more jurors were periodically asleep during the trial, thereby denying defendant his right to trial by a jury of 12.
Any experienced trial judge and trial attorney can vouchsafe for the unquestioned fact that very few trials proceed to verdict with the full attention of every juror for every moment of the trial. Various distractions occur from time to time that interfere with full concentration on the drama unfolding before a jury. It may be a private problem of the individual juror, it may be the temperature in the courtroom,' it may be the desultory nature of the presentment of evidence, it may even be the passage of a bird or a train past the window of the courtroom. In this case, the distraction, at its worst, may have been a short nap, which does not take the jurors attention off of the evidence anymore than an overheated courtroom, a day-dream, or observation of passing traffic.
There is no guarantee found anywhere, whether the constitution, the federal or state statutes, or the common law, that the entire jury will always maintain 100 per cent concentration on matters before it. That’s the way it is and it’s wishful thinking to hope otherwise.