Florida Youth Jailed for 10 Days for Missing Jury Duty
Deandre Somerville is a 21-year-old African-American whose first experience with visiting a courthouse was for jury service. On the first day of a civil case, he overslept until 11 am and figured it was too late to return to court. Instead he returned to his job at the West Palm Beach Parks and Recreation Department. After he returned to the home of his grandparents, whom he helps care for, he was arrested and taken before a judge, who immediately locked him up for 10 days, placed him on one-year probation, and ordered 150 hours of community service. Weeks later, the judge eventually changed his mind and vacated the charge and the probationary term. The HuffPostreports that Mr. Somerville’s police mug shot appears when his name is Googled.
SCOTUS Hears Arguments Regarding Whether Non-Unanimous Verdicts Are Unconstitutional
On October 6 (the first day of the new Supreme Court term), the High Court heard arguments from the parties in Ramos v. Louisiana. At issue is whether the repeal of the Louisiana’s non-unanimous verdict rule should be applied retroactively to nullify non-unanimous convictions that occurred before the repeal. On the following day, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial recounting the shameful history of the Louisiana rule and arguing that the 6th Amendment right to a unanimous jury should be applied to the states and not just to federal courts.
Similarly, on October 7, Oregon’s Statesman Journal published a piece asserting that the Ramos case could end up nullifying Oregon’s non-unanimous verdict rule that SCOTUS approved in 1972.
Trial Judges, Be Careful About What and How You Give Assistance to Deliberating Juries
In a pretrial conference, the trial court in United States v. Becerraalerted the parties that it would only provide written instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial. At the end of all evidentiary presentations, the court followed through on its plan and discharged the jury to begin deliberations without an oral presentation from the bench but merely pointing to the instructions they already possessed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found this procedure was structural error justifying a reversal of Becerra’s drug conviction and, in doing so, explained why the failure to give oral instructions in the courtroom was unlawful.
In Florida, there is an explicit rule that requires state trial judges to provide responses to deliberating juror questions orally in open court. In Strachan v. State, an appellate court found it to be reversible error for the trial judge, in responding to a deliberating jury’s request for play back of testimony, to simply give the recording to the jury in the deliberation room.
And What About a Judge Giving Too Much Information to a Question from a Deliberating Jury?
In State v. Hayes, the trial court responded to a deliberating jury’s request for play back of a complaining witness’s interview with an investigator. Without asking the jury what parts of the interview were concerning the jury, the court provided the whole content of the interview to the jury. The Montana Supreme Court found that the court committed reversible error by not narrowing the play back to the specific concerns of the jury.
Does Plaintiff’s Discussion of $200 Million Damages During Voir Dire Constitute Reversible Error?
No, says a California appellate court. TheCalifornia Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 222.5(b)(3) defines improper questioning during voir dire to include any “question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or question the prospective jurors concerning the pleadings or the applicable law.” The losing defendant in Fernandez v. Jimenezargued that plaintiff’s attorney preconditioned the jury during voir dire by asking if they would be okay awarding $200 million. The appellate panel determined that plaintiff was not indoctrinating the venire because the mention of millions of dollars in damages was prompted first by a prospective juror.
