Matthews v. United States, 4739.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 4739.,4739. |
| Citation | 252 A.2d 505 |
| Parties | Paul E. MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
James A. Treanor, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Lee A. Freeman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and FICKLING and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of petit larceny, D.C.Code 1967, § 22-2202, and was found not guilty of simple assault, D.C. Code 1967, § 22-504.
After the foreman announced the jury's verdict, defense counsel requested that the jury be polled as to the petit larceny. When their names were called, eleven of the jurors simply answered "Guilty." When the ninth juror was polled, however, the following colloquy took place:
Deputy Clerk: Sarah I. Stackhouse.
Stackhouse: Guilty. Your Honor, can I ask about the pettit [sic] larceny?
Court: That is all, either guilty or not guilty.
Stackhouse: I can't express myself any further?
Court: No, you can only —
Stackhouse: It is conditional.
Court: You have to answer either guilty or not guilty.
Stackhouse: Guilty.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Defense counsel moved for a mistrial after juror Stackhouse was polled and also at the end of the jury poll. The trial judge denied each motion and accepted the jury's verdict. Appellant now contends that the trial judge should have granted his motion for a mistrial or should have sent the jury back for further deliberation.
In 2300 Restaurant, Inc. v. Cavell, D.C. Mun.App., 143 A.2d 637, 638 (1958), which concerned the polling of a jury, we stated:
However, if there had been any equivocation on the part of the juror in responding to the court's inquiries, showing a lack of unanimity, the jury should have been instructed to return to the jury room for further deliberation, or have been discharged.
In the instant case, when the juror stated that her verdict was conditional, the trial judge should have been alerted to the probability that there might not be unanimity in the verdict. Therefore, he should not have required the juror to answer "either guilty or not guilty," but should have returned the jury to the jury room for further deliberation.1
The juror's subsequent statement of "Guilty" did not serve to remove the uncertainty of her verdict since she was responding to the court's directive that "you have to answer either guilty or not guilty."
In 1857, the court in Wisconsin v. Austin, 6 Wis. 205, 207, said:
Under the present administration of justice in this country, it is impossible to over estimate the importance of preserving the trial by jury in all its purity and integrity. The life, liberty, reputation and property of our citizens are constantly committed to the decisions of a jury. Hence the necessity for the great vigilance and care which are exercised by cour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. State
...(recognizing the principle but holding that juror's response on polling was not conditional or uncertain). See also Matthews v. United States, 252 A.2d 505, 506 (D.C.1969) (contrasted and distinguished in Biggs) (reversing judgment of conviction entered after one juror, on polling, said her......
-
U.S. v. Morris
...571 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir.); United States v. McCoy, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 63, 429 F.2d 739, 742 (D.C.Cir.); Matthews v. United States, 252 A.2d 505, 506-07 (D.C.App.). In the Cook case, it was held that the trial court erred by refusing to repoll where an uncertainty as to the verdict deve......
-
Lumpkin v. US, 88-536
...`we cannot say with assurance that the jury freely and fairly arrived at a unanimous verdict.'" Id. at 845 (quoting Matthews v. United States, 252 A.2d 505, 507 (D.C.1969)). These cases followed our decision in Pearson v. United States, 262 A.2d 337 (D.C. 1970) (error to continue poll after......
-
State v. Holloway
...571 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir. [1978]; United States v. McCoy, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 63, 429 F.2d 739, 742 (D.C.Cir. [1970]; Matthews v. United States, 252 A.2d 505, 506-07 (D.C.App. Morris is in accord with a majority of courts which have considered the effect of an ambiguous response of a jur......
-
Dodging Mistrials With a Mandatory Jury Inquiry Rule
...comm. notes (1998). 225. Sexton, 456 F.2d at 964. 226. United States v. McCoy, 429 F.2d 739 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Matthews v. United States, 252 A.2d 505 (D.C. 227. Sexton, 456 F.2d at 964. 228. See id. at 966 (citing Williams v. United States, 419 F.2d 740, 751-52 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). 229. Sexto......