People v. Gomez, 41 N.Y.2d 936 (1977)
A trial court’s instruction to a deadlocked jury regarding further deliberations, including a mention of potential sequestration, does not constitute coercion if the instruction, viewed in its entirety, encourages the jury to reach a just verdict based on their individual conclusions and the law.
Summary
Following a five-day trial, the jury in People v. Gomez deliberated for approximately five hours before reporting difficulty in reaching a verdict. The trial court instructed the jury to attempt to resolve their differences, reminding them of their oath to be objective and urging them to calmly weigh the evidence. The court also mentioned the possibility of sequestration if a verdict wasn’t reached shortly. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s instructions, viewed in their totality, did not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict. The court emphasized that the jury was free to convict, acquit, or disagree, and the judge’s remarks were not an attempt to compel a particular verdict.
Facts
After a five-day trial, the jury began deliberations around 12:30 p.m.
Approximately five hours later, the jury foreman indicated they were still having difficulties reaching a verdict.
The trial judge informed the jury that if they could not reach a verdict by 6:45 p.m., they would be sent to dinner and then sequestered at a hotel overnight, with further deliberations to resume the next morning.
The judge also provided instructions regarding their duty to attempt to resolve their differences and arrive at a just verdict based on the evidence and the law.
Procedural History
The trial court gave instructions to the jury after they indicated a deadlock.
The defendant appealed, arguing the judge’s instructions were coercive.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court’s instruction to the deadlocked jury, including the mention of potential sequestration, constituted an attempt to coerce or compel the jury to reach a particular verdict.
Holding
No, because the court’s instructions, when viewed in their entirety, did not pressure the jury to reach a verdict against their conscience, but rather encouraged them to deliberate and attempt to resolve their differences in accordance with the law and the evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial judge’s instructions, when taken as a whole, did not constitute coercion. The court emphasized that the judge stated he was not suggesting they should agree on a verdict they did not consider just. The instructions also reminded the jury of their oath to be objective and to weigh the evidence carefully. The court cited several precedents, including People v. Randall, to support the proposition that urging a jury to agree is permissible, as long as the instructions don’t compel a particular verdict. The court distinguished the present case from situations involving improper conduct, remarks, or innuendos. The court stated, “the jury was free to convict, acquit or disagree and the remarks did not constitute an attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict”. The mere mention of sequestration, absent improper pressure, was deemed acceptable under the circumstances. The court noted the importance of having a jury agree may be properly urged upon the attention of its members.