ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Kansas Defenders

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Public Defense

: Kansas Defenders

Allen instruction given before opening results in new trial [NOT FINAL]

ADVERTISEMENTS
Leslie Hess won in State v. Rivera, No. 100,848 (Kan. App. Jan. 29, 2010)(unpublished), obtaining a new trial in a Ford County DUI prosecution. The COA reversed based on instructions given before opening statements:
Prior to opening statements the trial court issued a series of oral instructions, concluding, ?If you should fail to reach a decision the case is left open and undecided. Like all cases it must be decided sometime. Another trial would be a heavy burden.?
During deliberations, the jury indicated they had reached an impasse. The district court had the jurors continue deliberating.

The State concedes that based on Salts and Page, [blogged about here and here] the district court erred in instructing the jury in this case that ?[a]nother trial would be a heavy burden on both sides.? And, as it must, the State concedes that here, as in Page, the jury advised the court that it was at an impasse. Nevertheless, the State contends the facts here do not require reversal because here, unlike in Salts or Page, the objectionable instruction was orally given to the jury at the outset of trial rather than provided both orally and in writing just prior to deliberations.

These distinctions do not weaken, or undercut, the rationale of Salts or Page. Whether given at the start of the trial or at the close of the trial and whether given orally or in writing, the instruction was misleading in that it advised the jury that in attempting to reach a verdict, it should consider that a second trial might be burdensome to all parties. And significantly, as in Salts and Page, the trial court here gave the jury a conflicting instruction that ?[t]he disposition of the case [after the jury's verdict] is a matter for determination by the Court? and not the jury's concern. Finally, as in Page, the effect of the erroneous deadlocked jury instruction here is more significant in light of the jury's report to the court that it was at an impasse.

Another example of the importance of Salts. I wonder why we couldn't agree to just let juries do their thing and stop all of these extraneous attempts to tell the jury how to do their thing.

Hat tip to Linda Eckleman.

Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on February 12, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0028 secs (from cache 11/02/26 23:33:17)