Court Opinion

ID: 9470201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:59:17.476643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:46.787836
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment. I do not believe the serious deficiencies in the interro*381gation procedure followed by the trial judge in this case warrant reversal. The substantial time that it took to read the testimony, and the further deliberations, persuade me that any coercive pressure was eliminated and that the jury’s verdict was freely reached. I write separately because the case comes close to presenting reversible error and such interrogations should not be repeated.
As the questioning proceeded, juror-by-juror, it should have become increasingly apparent that the jurors took different views as to the necessity for hearing the additional evidence. An individual poll in this circumstance came perilously close to intruding upon the jurors’ deliberations. The error in procedure was compounded when the court continued to question juror No. 7. The court’s objective in inquiring which juror wanted the testimony is puzzling. In any event, it does not justify a series of questions each of which tended to isolate the requesting juror.