Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A judge who told a deadlocked jury that its job was “to get a result” coerced it into returning a guilty verdict five minutes later, New York’s Court of Appeals ruled this week. The court admonished trial judges to strike an appropriate balance in their jury instructions, and upheld a decision of a lower appeals court that had reversed the conviction of Ramon Aponte for selling crack cocaine in Harlem. “Defendant was entitled to an uncoerced, unanimous jury verdict, not one tainted by the improper jury instructions given here,” Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for the unanimous court in People v. Ramon Aponte. The case focused on a supplemental charge that Supreme Court Justice Edward J. McLaughlin delivered to a deliberating jury in a drug case. After two days of deliberations, jurors sent a note indicating that they could not come to a unanimous agreement. McLaughlin told the panel the “point of this process is to get a result” and they should “do what you said you would do when we started which is to decide this case.” He said he was “nowhere near” declaring a mistrial. Five minutes later, the jury convicted Aponte of third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division, 1st Department, reversed the conviction in a 3-2 decision identifying five errors in McLaughlin’s charge, and the Court of Appeals agreed with the 1st Department majority. Judge Ciparick said a supplemental charge to a deadlocked jury must balance the interest in resolving the case and the need for jurors to deliberate conscientiously, without surrendering their honest convictions simply to reach a verdict. “Contrary to the court’s supplemental instruction, the object of the jury system is not to ‘get a result,’ it is ‘to secure unanimity by a comparison of views and by arguments among the jurors themselves,’” Ciparick wrote, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court in Allen v. United States, 164 US 492 (1896). James M. Hosking of Clifford Chance in Manhattan argued for the defense. Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Sheryl Feldman appeared for the prosecution.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.