In a recent appeal division case, a drug conviction was reversed because the trial court provided special  instruction to a jury in order to nurture a deadlock into a verdict.  In analyzing the issue, the appeals court first observed that one of the core concepts associated with the right to a jury trial is a need for the honest judgment of each juror, uninfluenced by the pressures that may be asserted by a trial court or the government’s lawyer.  Although a trial judge has the discretion to request a jury to continue its deliberation after it has declared an inability to agree on a verdict, that discretion must be cautiously applied.  Where, the jury has identified a deadlock “after a reasonable period of deliberation” a court should not request or suggest further effort. 

In the case before the appellate panel, the jury had advised the judge on a number of occasions over two days that it was not able to reach a verdict.  Notwithstanding, the trial court continued to try and convince the jury that it was a simple case, involving approximately four witnesses.  In addition, the trial court attempted to summarize the evidence to convince the jury of the case’s simplicity.  As a result, the appellate division concluded that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury to continue the deliberations were coercive and reversed the jury’s guilty verdict.