State v. Olsen, Minn.Ct.App., 12/17/2012. “Get back in your room,” the judge howled, “And don’t come out until you’ve a verdict!” A jury convicted Mr. Olsen of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. After deliberating a while, the jury sent out a note informing everyone that it had reached an “impasse” and asking how they should continue. That’s when the judge let loose:
Members of the jury, I received your note from . . . your foreperson. “We have reached an impasse, how should we continue.” I have discussed that with counsel as well as Mr. Olsen. How should you continue? You should continue. I don’t believe you have deliberated long enough and I’m going to send you back to continue your deliberations reminding you of the instructions I gave you. And I’ll remind you once again you are the finders of fact. There are twelve of you and you are to make a decision on this. It’s what I have discussed with counsel, and this is being done with their approval as well but it’s ultimately my call. Back to the room. If you go into the noon hour give us a half hour, forty-five minutes to get you something to eat.
(Emphasis in original.)
A court can neither inform a jury that a case must be decided, nor allow a jury to believe that a deadlock is not an available option. State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. 1996). To do so is reversible error. That’s what the judge did here so Mr. Olsen gets a new trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment