Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 7881.
Decision Date | 09 February 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 7881.,7881. |
Citation | 75 US App. DC 192,126 F.2d 224 |
Parties | BRUCE v. CHESTNUT FARMS-CHEVY CHASE DAIRY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Joseph A. Solem, with whom Mr. Raymond J. Nolan, both of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Edwin A. Swingle, with whom Messrs. Ernest A. Swingle and Allan C. Swingle, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
This is an action begun in the court below for damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of drinking milk from a bottle containing splinters of glass. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned to the court room and were asked by the clerk in the presence of the judge and counsel if they had agreed upon a verdict. The jury responded "Yes". Upon being asked what the verdict was, the jury responded, "For the defendant". The clerk then asked, "Is this your verdict, members of the Jury, so say you each and all". The reply was, "Yes". Thereupon the plaintiff's attorney asked for a poll of the jury. The presiding judge stated that he would poll the jury personally. The record then shows that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tough v. Ives
...in interrogating the juror, as recited above, and requiring an explanation for her dissent, citing Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 126 F.2d 224, 225, and Patterson v. Rossignol, 245 A.2d 852, 855 (Me.). These cases envision heavy-handed conduct which coerces ......
-
United States v. Blackston
...for further deliberation or discharge them. U. S. v. Sexton, 456 F.2d 961, 966 (5th Cir. 1972), quoting Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 126 F.2d 224, 225 (D.C.Cir.1942); accord Sincox v. U. S., 571 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 1978). In the instant case, each juror was polled as to wh......
-
State v. Rice
...he has agreed in the jury room...." United States v. Sexton, 456 F.2d 961, 966 (5th Cir.1972) (quoting Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 126 F.2d 224, 225 (D.C.Cir.1942)). Besides affording jurors the opportunity to change their minds, polling impresses upon them the need to be sur......
-
University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp.
...it has been delivered. It is improper to interrogate a juror concerning what he meant by his verdict. Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 126 F.2d 224 (1942). An affidavit of a juror is admissible to slow that the verdict delivered was not that actually agreed up......
-
Dodging Mistrials With a Mandatory Jury Inquiry Rule
...959 (1st Cir. 1986)). 222. United States v. Sexton, 456 F.2d 961, 966 (5th Cir. 1972) (citing Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 126 F.2d 224, 225 (D.C. Cir. 223. FED. R. CRIM. P. 31(d). 224. FED. R. CRIM. P. 31 advisory comm. notes (1998). 225. Sexton, 456 F.2d at 964. 226. United ......
-
Appendix I University Computing Co. v.Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974)
...improper to interrogate a juror concerning what he meant by his verdict. Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 75 U. S.App.D.C. 192, 126 F.2d 224 (1942). An affidavit of a juror is admissible to show that the verdict delivered was not that actually agreed upon. See Fox v. United States......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 31 Jury Verdict
...of existing law and practice, Mackett v. United States, 90 F.2d 462, 465 (C.C.A. 7th); Bruce v. Chestnut Farms Chevy Chase Dairy, 126 F.2d 224, NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1972 AMENDMENTSubdivision (e) is new. It is intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enac......