Supreme Court considers federal judge's authority to recall jury shortly after discharge
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether a federal judge who realizes jurors made an error in their judgment can recall them for additional deliberations a short time after their discharge.
The justices “seemed inclined—but not certain” to accept that federal judges have some limited authority to recall a discharged jury, SCOTUSblog reports. The Associated Press and Reuters also had reports on the arguments in Dietz v. Boudin.
The court’s opinion in the case might discuss “cautious limitations” on that authority without necessarily adopting them, SCOTUSblog predicts.
The issue arose in a diversity trial stemming from a Montana car accident in which both sides had stipulated to about $10,000 in damages, but the injured plaintiff, Rocky Dietz, wanted more, Jurors had awarded nothing, though they were obligated to return a verdict for at least the stipulated amount.
The trial judge stopped jurors from leaving the courthouse, reassembled them, and asked if they had spoken about the case. The jurors said they had not. The judge gave them correct instructions and ordered them to deliberate. Jurors quickly awarded $15,000. Dietz’s lawyer is arguing that jurors should not be recalled after a discharge, and Dietz is entitled to a new trial.
During the Supreme Court arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that jurors could be exposed to outside influences immediately after leaving the courtroom, according to AP coverage. It’s not uncommon, she said, “for families to be crying outside of courtrooms, for families to be talking to each other and visibly expressing either their pleasure or displeasure at what a jury did.”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, on the hand, considered the time and expense of a new trial. “Why don’t we say the efficiency argument is what counts? It matters to people. It means whether they can get their cases resolved or not,” he said.
