Patterson
Patterson v. People of the State of California
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…