Court Opinion

ID: 9452226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:33:12.401152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:07.028921
License: Public Domain

WEICK, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I think also it was error for the trial judge to state to the jury, after he had delivered the Allen charge and advised the jury of its relationship with the court as a partner:
“Half of our cases are not jury cases. Over half of them are non-jury cases in which the Court is called upon to find the facts and state the legal conclusions. And the judge must do that in writing. He must put down and make written findings of fact. And I, in the twenty-four years on this court, have never turned one back yet that I couldn’t decide.
“I just throw that out to you for what it is worth.
“Gentlemen, we can’t consider entering a mistrial at this time.”
In my opinion, there is little analogy between the duty of a judge to decide a case submitted to him and that of the twelve jurors who were unable, after long hours of deliberation, to agree upon a unanimous verdict. A judge, in reaching his decision, would not need to persuade eleven other persons to agree with it.
The statement of the judge might well have influenced the jurors to follow his example of deciding every case, particularly since they could recommend leniency, or it may have caused them to believe that they would be neglectful of *66their duty if they did not return a verdict even though they were not in unanimous agreement.
It is not a violation of a juror’s oath to refrain from agreeing to a guilty verdict if he has a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.
The fact that the court stated, “I just throw that out to you for what it is worth,” did not, in my judgment, minimize its harmful effect.
The error appears all the more prejudicial when viewed in the light of the entire proceedings that took place after submission of the case to the jury. They are graphically portrayed in the opinion of this court.