Home Table of Contents

WPI 1.12 Deadlocked Jury

6 WAPRAC WPI 1.12Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 1.12 (7th ed.)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

April 2022 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part I. General Instructions

Chapter 1. Introductory and General

WPI 1.12 Deadlocked Jury

You have indicated that you are unable to reach a verdict. I would like to offer assistance to you at this point. Please understand that you are free to accept or reject this offer, as you see fit.

I am proposing that you return to the jury room and try to identify your areas of disagreement. The disagreement might relate either to the evidence or the final instructions of law. Within the areas of disagreement, you may be able to identify particular questions that are preventing you from reaching a verdict.

If you would like assistance from the court or counsel with these questions, use the following procedures: Write your questions down as simply and clearly as you can. The presiding juror should sign and date the questions. Be careful, however, not to indicate how the jurors have voted on any particular question, issue, or claim, and do not express in any other way your opinions about the case.

If you choose to submit questions to the court, give them to the bailiff. I will review the questions with the attorneys and determine if there is any assistance we can provide for you.

In closing, I want to repeat that I do not wish or intend to force you to reach a verdict. I am merely offering assistance, which you are free to accept or reject.

You may return to the jury room.

NOTE ON USE

This oral instruction may be used only if the judge has already determined that the jury is deadlocked. Once that decision is made, the judge has discretion to use this instruction to offer additional assistance to the jury. See Comment.

See WPI 6.14 (Probability of Verdict), for the procedure to be followed in determining whether or not a jury is apparently deadlocked, and WPI 6.13 (Additional Instructions of Law), for the procedure to be followed if any additional instruction is to be given.

COMMENT

Generally. The instruction is based on the recommendations of the Washington State Jury Commission, which recommended in 2002 that a trial judge, after determining that a jury is in fact deadlocked, offer assistance to the jury. The Commission's report stated:

When deliberating jurors in a civil case report that they cannot reach a verdict, the judge should take additional steps after confirming that the jury is, in fact, deadlocked. The judge should invite the jury to state, in writing, the points of law or evidence upon which it cannot agree and desires help. The judge should discuss the jury's response with counsel before deciding how to proceed. The judge can provide additional instructions, permit additional closing arguments, reread or replay testimony, reopen the trial for more evidence, or allow a combination of these. In communicating with jurors, the judge must avoid any appearance of coercing a verdict.

Washington State Jury Commission's Report to the Board for Judicial Administration, Recommendation 41 (July 2000) (see Appendix G).

By offering assistance to a deadlocked jury, the judge and parties may be able to eliminate the need for a second trial. The time spent in offering assistance to a deadlocked jury may be worthwhile if a second trial can be precluded.

Judicial discretion. Judges may exercise discretion in deciding whether and how to offer assistance to a deadlocked jury. In light of the potential risk of error (see below), the committee recommends that this instruction be used only by agreement of the parties.

Avoiding coercion of verdicts. The risk involved in offering assistance is the potential for coercing a verdict and opening up additional issues for appellate review. Proper use of this instruction, however, can minimize this risk. The instruction must be phrased and delivered in a manner that clearly indicates to the jurors that they are free to accept or decline the offered assistance. Jurors are much less likely to feel coerced if they understand that they may reject the offered assistance after minimal discussion and if they understand that their previously fruitless deliberations might be made easier with the receipt of additional information on the law or the evidence.

In criminal cases, the rules about avoiding coercion are more specific and may be helpful by analogy when exercising discretion in civil cases. CrR 6.15(f)(2) prohibits any supplemental instruction that suggests any of three specific things: the need for agreement; the consequences of no agreement; and the length of time the jury will be required to deliberate. CrR 6.15(f)(2) does not prohibit all instructions to a deadlocked jury. See State v. Watkins, 99 Wn.2d 166, 660 P.2d 1117 (1983); State v. Lee, 77 Wn.App. 119, 889 P.2d 944, reversed on other grounds at 128 Wn.2d 151, 904 P.2d 1143 (1995). Cf. State v. Boogaard, 90 Wn.2d 733, 585 P.2d 789 (1978).

For discussion of related instructions, see the Comments to WPI 6.12.01 (Questions by Jury Addressed to Court) and WPI 6.14 (Probability of Verdict).

[Current as of September 2018.]

End of Document