Juror Removal – Coercive Acts by the Court

By: Derek Hawkins//March 28, 2016//

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: USA v. John Smith

Case No.: 15-1901

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Juror Removal – Coercive Acts by the Court

Court refusal to allow juror to remove themselves mid-deliberation was not unduly coercive.

“We agree with the government and the district court that Smith waived his challenge to the court’s response by affirmatively proposing the formulation of the response. When a defendant affirmatively approves an instruction to the jury, he waives his challenge. United States v. Kirklin, 727 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. DiSantis, 565 F.3d 354, 361 (7th Cir. 2009). Smith’s unequivocal answer of “perfect”—a more affirmative answer than, say, “no objection”— constitutes a waiver. See United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Ordinarily, we treat an affirmatively stated “no objection” to a jury instruction as a waiver.”).”

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event