Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 7881.

Decision Date09 February 1942
Docket NumberNo. 7881.,7881.
Citation75 US App. DC 192,126 F.2d 224
PartiesBRUCE v. CHESTNUT FARMS-CHEVY CHASE DAIRY.
CourtU.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.

PER CURIAM.

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:

"He pointed to one of the Jurors (Mrs. Sinrod) who was at the end of one of the two lines of Jurors, and asked, `What is your verdict'? She responded, `For the plaintiff'. The Court said, `You mean for the defendant?' She responded, `No, for the plaintiff'. The Court said, `Do you know who the plaintiff is'? and she said, `Yes'. The Court said, `Plaintiff is the one who is bringing the suit, the defendant is the one against whom the suit is brought'. Juror Sinrod replied, `Yes, I know that, that is the plaintiff (pointing to the plaintiff) and that is his attorney (pointing to Attorney Solem)'.

"In the meantime considerable talking and whispering had arisen in the Jury box. Attorney Swingle, for the defendant, arose and said, `Well, didn't you agree your verdict was for the defendant in the Jury room'? Whereupon counsel for the plaintiff immediately objected to any interrogation by defendant's attorney of the Juror as to her verdict and also objected to further questioning of the Juror by the Court. The Court failed to rule on this objection. Defendant's attorney attempted to continue his questioning but was stopped by the Presiding Judge. Under repeated questioning by the Court, Juror Sinrod said that she had been for the plaintiff all along and said, `If you mean my own verdict, it is for the plaintiff'. This Juror then said she had agreed in the Jury room to a verdict for the defendant, after listening to the arguments of the other Jurors and in order not to tie up the jury, and then she said in the Jury box, `I find now for the defendant', `I thought you were asking how I stood in the beginning in the Jury room. I did agree to a verdict for the defendant'.

"Attorney Solem, for the plaintiff, immediately moved for a mistrial, and the Court responded, `Don't interrupt me now, I am going to continue with the poll'. The Presiding Judge then continued to poll the Jurors and the next three Jurors each said they found for the defendant. The Judge then came to the fifth juror. When he asked her what her verdict was, she said, `For the plaintiff'. The Presiding Judge then asked her if she did not mean the defendant. She responded, `No, for the plaintiff, and I would like to say something to the Court.' The Judge said, `This is not the time for that'. Plaintiff, through Attorney Solem, again moved for a mistrial. The Presiding Judge denied this motion and said, `I am going to finish polling this Jury'. He then continued to poll the Jury, and all the jurors responded for the defendant. Upon completion, he told the Jury they might go. Juror Russell said she wanted to speak to the Judge about the matter. He said, `No, this is not the time for that'. Attorney Solem again moved for a mistrial and the Judge said, `I heard you the first time, I won't pass on that now'. This Juror on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Tough v. Ives
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 26 Enero 1972
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 13 Septiembre 1982
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 9 Junio 1988
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 15 Noviembre 1974
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Dodging Mistrials With a Mandatory Jury Inquiry Rule
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 32-04, June 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...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)
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Guide to Protecting and Litigating Trade Secrets
    • 27 Junio 2012
    ...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......
1 provisions
  • 18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 31 Jury Verdict
    • United States
    • US Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT