In a Kansas Court of Appeals opinion published last Friday, the court took a stand to safeguard a defendant’s right to a fair trial. In State v. Baughman, Mr. Baughman appealed his conviction on numerous grounds, including that the District Judge gave the jury a “coercive, misleading, confusing and legally infirm” instruction on how to handle the possibility of a “deadlocked” jury. The instruction reads as follows:
“This is an important case. 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 on both sides.
There is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again any better or more
exhaustively than it has been. There is no reason to believe that more evidence or clearer
evidence would be produced on behalf of either side.
Also, there is no reason to believe that the case would ever be submitted to 12
people more intelligent or more impartial or more reasonable than you. Any future jury
must be selected in the same manner that you were.
This does not mean that those favoring any particular position should surrender
their honest convictions as to the weight or effect of any evidence solely because of the
opinion of other jurors or because of the importance of arriving at a decision.
This does mean that you should give respectful consideration to each other’s
views and talk over any differences of opinion in a spirit of fairness and candor. If at all
possible, you should resolve any differences and come to a common conclusion. You
may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and take all the time
you feel necessary.”
In a previous case, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the jury instruction was improper and directed district judges not to use this instruction. However, in this case the District Judge did give the improper jury instruction even though Mr. Baughman’s attorney objected to its use at trial.
The Court of Appeals made clear that this type of instruction will no longer be tolerated and defendants should object to its use. Regardless of whether a jury ever actually becomes “deadlocked,” the Court held this instruction was “misleading, inaccurate, and erroneous.” As a result, Mr. Baughman’s conviction was reversed and his case was remanded.
For experienced attorneys that will protect your right to a fair trial, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.