skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 186598 Find in a Library
Title: Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations (From Criminal Courts for the 21st Century, P 289-306, 1999, Lisa Stolzenberg and Stewart J. D'Alessio, eds. -- See NCJ-186588)
Author(s): Bennett L. Gershman
Date Published: 1999
Page Count: 18
Sponsoring Agency: Prentice Hall (Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc)
Paramus, NJ 07652-5240
Sale Source: Prentice Hall (Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc)
Promotion Manager
240 Rrisch Court
Paramus, NJ 07652-5240
United States of America
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Book (Softbound)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article discusses judicial misconduct during jury deliberations.
Abstract: During the jury deliberation process the judge ministers to the jury's personal needs, controls the deliberation schedule, facilitates review of evidence, answers jury questions about legal and factual issues, reiterates legal instructions, investigates allegations of irregularities, and determines the overall pace and extent of deliberations. Two principal kinds of improper judicial behavior can occur during jury deliberations: judicial conduct that attempts to pressure a jury to reach a verdict, and judicial participation in private, ex parte communications with jurors. Appellate courts carefully scrutinize deadlock instructions to determine whether the content or timing of the instructions was coercive. The courts also examine whether other coercive language might have induced a verdict that was the product not of conscientious agreement on the merits but, rather, of the pressure of time constraints and continued confinement. Although the standards are not uniform, Federal and State appellate courts generally examine the judge-jury interaction on a case-by-case basis, under the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether there was actual prejudice or a clear potential for prejudice. Notes
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Appellate courts; Ex parte information; Judicial conduct and ethics; Judicial decisions; Juries; Jury decisionmaking; Jury instructions; Professional misconduct; Trial procedures
Note: Reprinted by permission of West Group from the Criminal Law Bulletin, vol. 27, (1991), pp. 291-314.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.