762 So. 2d 1247 - State v. Haynes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court shall order the clerk to poll the jury if requested by the state or the defendant. It shall be within the discre tion of the court whether |14such poll shall be conducted orally or in writing by applying the procedures of Paragraph (1) or Paragraph (2) of this Article. (1) Oral polling of the jury shall consist of the clerk’s calling each juror, one at a time, by name. He shall announce to each juror the verdict returned, and ask him, “Is this your verdict?” Upon receiving the juror’s answer to the question, the clerk shall record the answer. If, upon polling all of the jurors, the number of jurors required by law to find a verdict answer “Yes,” the court shall order the clerk to record the verdict and the jury shall be discharged. If, upon polling all of the jurors, the number required to find a verdict do not answer ‘Yes,” the jury may be remanded for further deliberation, or the court may declare a mistrial in accordance with Article 775. (2) The procedure for the written polling of the jury shall require that the clerk hand to each juror a separate piece of paper containing the name of the juror and the words “Is this your verdict?” Each juror shall write on the slip of paper the words ‘Yes” or “No” along with his signature. The clerk shall collect the slips of paper, make them available for inspection by the court and counsel, and record the results. If a sufficient number of jurors as required by law to reach a verdict answer “yes” the clerk shall so inform th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 901 So. 2d 1171 - State v. Williams

2. “The defendant now apparently contends that the trial court had no discretion to repoll but could only declare a mistrial. However, the defendant made no contemporaneous objection at trial to the polling procedure used by the trial court. La.Code Crim. P. art. 841. See also State v. Amato, 96-0606 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/30/97) , 698 So.2d 972 ; units denied, 97-2626 and 97-2644 (La.2/20/98), 709 So.2d 772 . The trial court’s actions were not coercive but merely an attempt to clarify the return of an improper verdict upon the jury’s signal that a proper verdict had been reached. The record does not support the defendant’s 11ficlaim that the juror had changed her vote from “guilty” to “not guilty.” Rather, it appears the juror was correcting an error. While it would have been a better practice, upon counting three “no” votes, to remand the jury for more deliberation or to determine on the record whether the initial polling was erroneous or if further deliberations were needed, a mistrial is required only where the jury is unable to reach a verdict by the proper concurrence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 901 So. 2d 1171 - State v. Williams