Court Opinion

ID: 9647910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:54:56.905592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:59.120537
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur. My reluctance is because the principal opinion approves the giving of the so-called “Hammer Instruction”, MAI-CR 1.10, during the deliberations of the jury. Every trial lawyer has had the experience of either benefitting from or being the victim of the prejudicial effect resulting from the giving of this instruction. Trial lawyers also have been *654aware that so long as jurors are prohibited from impeaching their verdicts, there was little or no chance that an appellate court would either find prejudice or change the jury verdict.
The prejudice in these cases does not flow from the wording of the instruction. The instruction is a proper statement of the law and its content is unassailable. The prejudice does flow from the psychological impact of the instruction being given during the jury deliberations and from the undue emphasis accorded the instruction as a result of its being given separate and apart from all of the other instructions.
While I am reluctant to abolish the instruction by judicial opinion, I would support changing MAI to make the “Hammer Instruction” a mandatory instruction in all cases, both criminal and civil, with directions that it be given together with all other instructions when the case is submitted to the jury.