Judges prodding divided jurors to reach a verdict do not necessarily have to tell them to follow their consciences, according to a federal appeals court. The 2nd Circuit declined to adopt a hard-and-fast rule on the words a judge should use when giving a potentially deadlocked jury a "modified" Allen charge. The court said the standard remained the same under its own case law and that of the Supreme Court: The instructions must be evaluated in context and under all the circumstances.
August 10, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Judges prodding divided jurors to reach a verdict do not necessarily have to tell them to follow their consciences, according to a federal appeals court.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to adopt a hard-and-fast rule on the words a judge should use when giving a potentially deadlocked jury a so-called “modified” Allen charge.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
