On December 8, 2017, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a defense verdict on appeal in<em> <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Berry-v.-Dickson-et-al..pdf">Berry v. Dickson et al.</a></em> Plaintiff Berry sued several defendants, alleging negligent maintenance of a building after a piece of ceiling collapsed and injured Berry. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defendants and Berry appealed on the issue that the jurors were deadlocked and that the trial court erred by instructing them to return to deliberations.
After an exhaustive three days of deliberations, the trial judge dismissed the jury and told them to return on Monday after the weekend. He instructed them that if they were unable to return a verdict on Monday due to being “hopelessly deadlocked” that he would then declare a mistrial. On Monday morning, the jurors requested to hear the charges re-read and then returned a defense verdict late in the afternoon. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial judge effectively coerced the jury after instructing them to resume deliberations after they indicated twice before that they were unable to reach a verdict.
The amount of time that a jury is kept together is a matter of discretion for the trial judge and will only be reversed for abuse of discretion or if there is evidence that the judge coerced the jury. Issues to look at are the charges, the complexity of the issues, the amount of testimony, the length of trial, and the solemnity of the trial.
In the instant case, the Superior Court found that the issues were complex in that the plaintiff alleged injuries to his spine and other parts of his body. In addition, the jury had to consider testimony from three fact witnesses and two experts. The court also noted that the jury mentioned that they were deadlocked but not “hopelessly deadlocked”. As such, the court affirmed the defense verdict.
This case demonstrates the importance of handling a jury during trial and to provide them with adequate jury instructions, and allowing them to deliberate appropriately. The alternative to this verdict would have been a mistrial, and likely, a retrial within a few months. While the plaintiff was obviously displeased with the result, lengthy deliberation is a function of the justice system, and not a grounds for reversal. In fact, the word "deliberation" is a derivative of the word, "deliberate," which means measured or cautious. Thanks to Peter Cardwell for his contribution to this post. Please email <a href="mailto:BGibbons@wcmlaw.com">Brian Gibbons</a> with any questions.