Guilty Verdict ends in Mistrial after Jury is Polled
[Guest post by DRJ]
I’ve never seen or heard of this before, which doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened but it’s certainly rare:
“After a “roller coaster” in federal court Wednesday, cosmetic surgeon Dr. Gayle Rothenberg was granted a mistrial on 13 federal charges involving an alleged scheme to buy and use a cheaper alternative to Botox.
The foreman of the jury panel initially announced that Rothenberg had been found guilty on all charges, but when her attorney Joel Androphy asked for a jury poll, one woman on the panel said: “That’s not my verdict.”
U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein sent the seven-man, five-woman jury back for further deliberations. About 30 minutes later, the jury sent the judge a note saying it could not reach a uanimous decision.”
I’m not the only one who was surprised:
“Assistant U.S. Attorney Sam Lewis said he has never seen such a thing happen in 20 years of being a federal prosecutor.
“It was kind of weird to have a verdict, and in the next second not have a verdict. It was a roller coaster, I would say,” Lewis said. “The government is prepared to move forward and try the case again.”
They must have been twelve eleven angry men and women during the “further deliberations.”
— DRJ
DRJ – I once saw a juror hem and haw about whether or not that was their verdict. The Judge immediately took the Juror from the box, and met with her in chambers. The Judge sent them back for clarification of their deliberations, and they returned within 5-10 minutes with a unanimous verdict. Suffice it to say that the defense attorney raised all sorts of hell, and will surely file an appeal.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:26 pmJury nullification, maybe?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:44 pmDid somebody just fart in here ?!
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:49 pmRecently a juror in downtown Los Angeles balked before saying guilty. The judge immediately stopped the polling and read the jury the reasonable doubt instruction and sent the jury back to deliberate. It hung 11 to 1. That judge gets 170.6’s but for more than just that.
Alta Bob (2cf0f7) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:04 pmI was under the impression that the purpose of jury polling was exactly this–to make sure that all the members of the jury agreed with the verdict.
kishnevi (d3f94a) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:39 pmActually, I’ve seen more than one jury sent back for further deliberations after polling produced some unexpected results. Don’t think I’ve ever seen that ultimately result in a mistrial, though. Lots of lawyers, upon hearing a bad verdict, decline to poll because they don’t want to hear it repeated over and over again. That’s probably a mistake, as this incident show.
Beldar (2a3e92) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:50 pmshow –> shows.
Beldar (2a3e92) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:50 pmI know jurors have second thoughts, especially when they have to speak up when they are polled. I’ve also seen cases where jurors were confused by the charge and verdict form and thought they were voting one way when they weren’t. I’ve even seen jurors change their minds when they enter the courtroom and look the parties in the eyes.
But a misunderstanding about how someone voted (if that’s what this was) would typically be caught during jury discussions in the jury room. It makes me wonder what happened back there.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:20 pm[…] Read the rest… […]
Jury Experiences (f515ed) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:23 pmKishnevi,
I think you’re right in theory but, if this occurred due to a juror mistake, hopefully it doesn’t happen that often. We presume that jurors listen to the evidence and argument, discuss and deliberate on the case, and vote in a clear and reasonable way. If that process breaks down for any reason, it may adversely affect the integrity of the verdict.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:29 pm#8 DRJ,
Then you have pushy control freaks who decide things are going to go one way, and so run roughshod over people with any objections. Sounds to me that one juror had objections, and the foreman flat out ignored them.
Alan Kellogg (7a2e09) — 9/20/2007 @ 5:20 amIt’s a lady’s prerogative to change her mind? (Ducks)
nk (474afa) — 9/20/2007 @ 5:36 amWhen do we get to talk about this in relation to Spector? Retracting a pinpoint instruction, and then reinstruct on reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt used to be “an abiding conviction, amounting to a moral certainty” but now they have eliminated anything moral or certain.
Obviously some jurors have reasonable doubts and others think those doubts aren’t reasonable. So lessen the standard, lower the bar, and get that conviction.
Who cares if he didn’t pull the trigger or held the gun?
nosh (56a0a8) — 9/20/2007 @ 7:26 amThere was a case in Detroit once where a juror didn’t agree during the poll on a verdict of “not guilty,” which ended up a mistrial. Prosecutors tend not to ask for a poll on acquittals, which may be a mistake.
tab (bee8c0) — 9/20/2007 @ 7:52 am“Prosecutors tend not to ask for a poll on acquittals, which may be a mistake.”
On first response, it isn’t a mistake. Even if one juror retracted, it takes a rabid prosecutor with support from superiors to refile and try a case lost but saved by one of twelve. But my goodness, now we have Juror #5 (or is it Juror #9) giving info about deliberations that the judge is using to do his best to get his guilty verdict.
nosh (56a0a8) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:05 am“it takes a rabid prosecutor to refile…” Perhaps, but 1)here it isn’t refiling– after a hung jury the case is automatically set for retrial unless the prosecutor moves to dismiss, and one would have to look at the case, and 2)if rather than the polling issue, the jury simply hung, and it was discovered they were 11-1 for acquittal, a decision not to have a second trial would not be automatic; again, one would look at the case and it might well be decided that a second trial was appropriate.
tab (7d7f4f) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:43 am“Then you have pushy control freaks who decide things are going to go one way, and so run roughshod over people with any objections. Sounds to me that one juror had objections, and the foreman flat out ignored them.”
That makes no sense. So you think they took a vote and it was 11-1 so the foreman decided that was close enough and marked it 12-0?
buzz (e09efa) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:18 pmHooray for Dr. Gayle! At least one juror had the sense to see through the prosecutors Bulls..t and refused to be bullied. There was much much more to this case, and the Court refused to admit any evidence that would have exonerated the Doctor. So much for the Sixth Amendment-Another miscarriage of justice!
iconoclast (f36c27) — 9/26/2007 @ 1:54 am