United States v. Gregory Herbert Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701 (8th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Gregory Herbert Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701 (8th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“(o)bjections based on juror misconduct during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal when counsel did not apprise the trial court of the alleged misconduct at trial.”
18 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Frank Dean (ca8, 1981-04-17) · Strongest negative: United States v. Frank Dean (ca8, 1982-01-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" United States v. Frank Dean (5×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1982 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Fries, 9 F.Cas. 826, 916-23 (C.C.D.Pa.1799) (No. 5126). 25 The cases generally have dealt with the timeliness issue as in United States v. Sorenson, where this court, without considering the degree of prejudice that might have been present, held that an objection based on known jury misconduct could not be raised for the first time after trial. 611 F.2d at 702 .
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Frank Dean (4×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
(o)bjections based on juror misconduct during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal when counsel did not apprise the trial court of the alleged misconduct at trial.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ronald Frazier
8th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
United States v. Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1979) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John C. Sheffey (2×)
6th Cir. · 1995 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1979) (“[0]bjections based on jury misconduct during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal when counsel did not apprise the trial court of the alleged misconduct at trial.”); Wright, supra, at 260 (“Objections based on misconduct concerning the jury cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Clayton Hoelscher, United States of America v. Mickie James Meriwether, United States of America v. Joseph Haag, United States of America v. Steven Carl McGirt United States of America v. Michael Moit, United States of America v. Alfred Giuffrida
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
We conclude that our line of decisions, culminating in United States v. Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1979), is controlling, and that appellant, by not bringing the question of juror misconduct to the attention of the trial court before the verdict was returned, thereby waived his right to a new trial. 99 United States v. Dean, supra at 734 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hoelscher
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
We conclude that our line of decisions, culminating in United States v. Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1979), is controlling, and that appellant, by not bringing the question of juror misconduct to the attention of the trial court before the verdict was returned, thereby waived his right to a new trial.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Edgerton
D. Maryland · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; see e.g., United States v. Sorenson, 611 F.2d 701 (8th Cir. 1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Gregory Herbert SORENSON, Appellant
79-1678.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 12, 1979.
611 F.2d 701
Gregory A. Gaut, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant., Francis X. Hermann, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee; Thorwald H. Anderson, Jr., U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., and Robert J. Leinweber, Legal Intern, on brief.
Heaney, Henley, Per Curiam, Schatz.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Gregory Herbert Sorenson was convicted in federal district court for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (bank robbery) and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. The defendant brought a motion for a new trial based on two grounds: (1) the trial court’s instructions to the jury were erroneous in that they improperly commented on the evidence and incorrectly defined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by using the word “probability”; and (2) one of the jurors was observed sleeping through portions of the trial. The defendant appeals on these same two grounds.

We refuse to reverse the conviction on either ground because counsel for defendant did not object at the time of trial. Indeed, after the jury had been instructed, the trial court specifically asked counsel if they had “any suggestions, observations, objections or anything of that kind” and defendant’s counsel said he saw no problems. Failure to object to jury instructions at the time of trial constitutes a waiver of the objection. See United States v. Collins, 552 F.2d 243 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 870, 98 S.Ct. 214, 54 L.Ed.2d 149 (1977). Similarly, objections based on jury misconduct during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal when counsel did not apprise the trial court of the alleged misconduct at trial. See United States v. Hester, 489 F.2d 48 (8th Cir. 1973).

Moreover, we have read the district court’s instructions and comments to the jury and are satisfied that, read as a whole, they were not erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.