Patterson

Patterson v. People of the State of California

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 20223:21-cv-06601California2,376 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. Coerced Verdict

Patterson argues the trial court’s “refusal to accept the jury’s repeated claims of impasse amounted to a violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair jury trial.”2 A. Relevant Facts Two and a half days into deliberations, the jury sent the trial court the following note: “We are at a stalemate. Can the Court please advise on further steps?” ECF No. 18-9 at 116. The defense asked for a mistrial. Id. at 116, 117. The trial court responded that the jurors had deliberated for only two and a half days, and most of that time they were waiting for answers to their questions or listening to a re-read. Id.at 116. The trial court noted that juror number 8 was promised that she would be released after deliberating that day because she had a preplanned vacation. Id. at 116-17. The court decided to release juror number 8, put in a substitute and give the jury the standard instructions to begin deliberations anew after putting in a substitute. Id. at 117, 119. After several more days of deliberations, questions from the jury and re-reads, the new jury sent a note stating, “We are at another impasse. Is there anything the Court can…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.