Court Opinion

ID: 9655849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:23:47.133561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:22.617287
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent.
The majority has in effect found that the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial. After hearing arguments, the trial judge, who was present and observed the demeanor of Juror B, made a reasoned decision to grant a mistrial because Juror B initiated a colloquy that proved to be “unnecessarily hostile” towards the prosecutor. In addition to hearing the answers, it was the trial judge, and not this reviewing Court, who was present and able to observe body language, eye contact, hand movements and vocal inflection of Juror B.
Jurors briefly assume the most powerful position in America. Jurors can ignore the law completely. Even if everyone *686agrees on the facts and the law is clear that the defendant is guilty on those facts, the jury may still acquit the defendant. A jury in a criminal case may do pretty much as it pleases when it comes to acquitting a defendant or convicting a defendant of a lesser charge. This tremendous power makes the modern Anglo-American jury system unique.
The jury is a microcosm of the outside world. It was designed to bring the conscience of the community into the court system. The nature of the kinship between democracy and trial by jury was pinpointed some years ago by Patrick Dev-lin, a British Justice and jury scholar, who commented, “In a democracy, law is made by the will of the people and obedience is given to it not primarily out of fear but from goodwill.” “A jury is a means by which the people play a great part in the application of the law.” Jurors form their views based on their own experience. That is the basis for how they will weigh and consider the evidence.
It is not enough for the jury system to look marvelous in theory, it has to work day after day in case after case. Here, Juror B demonstrated a hostility that indicated a lack of credibility in the prosecutor. Egregious verdicts and hung juries occur when there is a hostile juror who votes on the basis of special interests rather than on the merits of the evidence. Heres Juror B manifested a special interest in ridiculing the prosecutor. Because the trial judge was convinced that the conduct of Juror B lacked sufficient judiciousness in order to give a fair trial, it was certainly within the legitimate discretion of the trial judge to take corrective action by declaring a mistrial.
JOHNSTONE and WINTERSHEIMER, J.J., join in this dissent.