Criminal Procedure — sleeping jurors

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure — sleeping jurors

Any party who notices that a juror may have fallen asleep at trial must bring the issue to the trial court’s attention during trial as soon as practicable after the person notices the sleeping juror or he forfeits the issue.

“While Saunders correctly notes that Hampton, 201 Wis. 2d at 664, 673, entitles a defendant who alleges that a juror slept during trial to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the inattention prejudiced the defendant to the extent that he did not receive a fair trial, that case is inapposite. In Hampton, the defendant objected to the sleeping juror during trial, see id. at 66667. Furthermore, while Saunders implies that his objection made after the jury returned its verdict and after the jury was dismissed was timely, he points to no authority for this proposition. See State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, ¶30, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322 (we ‘may choose not to consider arguments unsupported by references to legal authority, arguments that do not reflect any legal reasoning, and arguments that lack proper citations to the record’). In fact, case law from multiple courts around the country establish that the proper time to object to an allegedly sleeping juror is when the issue first arises, thereby allowing the trial court to immediately correct the problem. See Hampton, 201 Wis. 2d at 669 n.3 (collecting cases from several circuits where defendants who failed to timely object to sleeping juror(s) were prohibited from arguing issue on appeal).”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP2393-CR State v. Saunders

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Donegan, J., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kagen, Robert A., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Freimuth, James M., Madison

Full Text