Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pollickgreen2 sentences2018The instruction note attendant to M Crim JI 3.12 states that the standard deadlocked jury instruction is “to be given when a jury returns from deliberation unable to reach a verdict.” -3- Whether an instruction substantially departs from the standard deadlocked jury instruction depends on whether the instruction has an “undue tendency of coercion,” which entails asking whether the given instruction could have “cause[d] a juror to abandon his conscientious dissent and defer[red] to the majority solely for the sake of reaching agreement?” Pollick, 448 Mich at 384 (quotation marks and citation om 2018The instruction note attendant to M Crim JI 3.12 states that the standard deadlocked jury instruction is “to be given when a jury returns from deliberation unable to reach a verdict.” -3- Whether an instruction substantially departs from the standard deadlocked jury instruction depends on whether the instruction has an “undue tendency of coercion,” which entails asking whether the given instruction could have “cause[d] a juror to abandon his conscientious dissent and defer[red] to the majority solely for the sake of reaching agreement?” Pollick, 448 Mich at 384 (quotation marks and citation om | 4 | 5 |
People v. Lanegreen2 sentences2018A defendant was prejudiced if, but for defense counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Lane, 308 Mich App at 68 (citations omitted). -8- Initially, defendant’s assertion that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s deadlocked jury instruction is meritless. 2018A defendant was prejudiced if, but for defense counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Lane, 308 Mich App at 68 (citations omitted). -8- Initially, defendant’s assertion that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s deadlocked jury instruction is meritless. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hardingreen2 sentences2025People v Engle, 118 Mich 287, 291-292 ; 76 NW 502 (1898) (wherein this Court ordered a new trial because after the jury indicated it was unable to reach a verdict, the trial court’s deadlocked-jury instruction failed to give an honest-conviction reminder); People v Hardin, 412 Mich 296 , 314; 365 NW2d 101 (1984) (holding that supplemental instructions were not unduly coercive where an honest-conviction reminder was given after the challenged instructions). 2020In Hardin, 421 Mich at 318 (quotation marks and citation omitted), it was explained that after a deadlocked jury instruction is provided and the jury has been unable to agree, a court may still require the jury to continue deliberations, and “may give or repeat an instruction.” The Hardin Court warned, however, that the trial court “ ‘shall not require or threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals.’ ” Id. at 318-319 , quoting American Bar Association (ABA) instruction 5.4(b).7 What the trial court was presented with, almost from | 1 | 7 |
People v. Lettgreen2 sentences2020See People v Lett, 466 Mich 206, 222 ; 644 NW2d 743 (2002).7 Instead, the trial court responded to a request made by the jury, which was for the trial court to remind the jury that its decision in the case was not to be based on sympathy or incidents extraneous to the proceedings. 2018People v Lett, 466 Mich 206 , 222- 223; 644 NW2d 743 (2002). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Handleygreen1 sentence2015In the future, however, such instructions should be avoided. [Handley, 415 Mich at 358-359 (quotation marks omitted).] The Handley Court proceeded to enunciate rules governing jury instructions in future cases when lesser offenses were at issue, stating: 6 The jury had indicated that it was deadlocked at one point, but ultimately reached a verdict after being given the deadlocked-jury instruction, M Crim JI 3.12. -7- [A] jury instructed after the day this opinion is released must be told to consider the principal charge first. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2015In Galloway, 307 Mich App at 157, 166 , when addressing a defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim arising from his counsel’s approval of a deadlocked-jury instruction that deviated from the standard jury instruction by suggesting that the jury conduct an internal poll, this Court reiterated that the safest course to avoid juror coercion is for a court to read the standard jury instructions. 2015This Court found that the defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s waiver of the standard instruction, because the instruction “did not have the potential to cause a juror to bend his or her will to that of the majority simply for the sake of reaching a verdict.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2025In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), the Michigan Supreme Court “adopted a standard deadlocked-jury instruction that has since been incorporated into our model jury instructions” as M Crim JI 3.12. 2025In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), the Michigan Supreme Court “adopted a standard deadlocked-jury instruction that has since been incorporated into our model jury instructions” as M Crim JI 3.12. | 12 | 1982–2025 |
People v. Lett
green
2 sentences2020See People v Lett, 466 Mich 206, 222 ; 644 NW2d 743 (2002).7 Instead, the trial court responded to a request made by the jury, which was for the trial court to remind the jury that its decision in the case was not to be based on sympathy or incidents extraneous to the proceedings. 2018People v Lett, 466 Mich 206 , 222- 223; 644 NW2d 743 (2002). | 3 | 2018–2020 |
People v. Goldsmith
green
2 sentences2020This instruction, which mirrors ABA instruction 5.4, provides jurors “with some guidance concerning their duties during deliberations.” People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich 555, 559 ; -8- 309 NW2d 182 (1981). 2020This instruction, which mirrors ABA instruction 5.4, provides jurors “with some guidance concerning their duties during deliberations.” People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich 555, 559 ; -8- 309 NW2d 182 (1981). | 3 | 1984–2020 |
People v. Engle
green
2 sentences2025People v Engle, 118 Mich 287, 291-292 ; 76 NW 502 (1898) (wherein this Court ordered a new trial because after the jury indicated it was unable to reach a verdict, the trial court’s deadlocked-jury instruction failed to give an honest-conviction reminder); People v Hardin, 412 Mich 296 , 314; 365 NW2d 101 (1984) (holding that supplemental instructions were not unduly coercive where an honest-conviction reminder was given after the challenged instructions). 2025People v Engle, 118 Mich 287, 291-292 ; 76 NW 502 (1898) (wherein this Court ordered a new trial because after the jury indicated it was unable to reach a verdict, the trial court’s deadlocked-jury instruction failed to give an honest-conviction reminder); People v Hardin, 412 Mich 296 , 314; 365 NW2d 101 (1984) (holding that supplemental instructions were not unduly coercive where an honest-conviction reminder was given after the challenged instructions). | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences1984In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), the Supreme Court disavowed the deadlocked jury instruction approved in Allen v United States, 164 US 492 ; 17 S Ct 154 ; 41 L Ed 528 (1896), and adopted the following ABA proposed instruction. "(a) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the court may give an instruction which informs the jury: "(i) that in order to return a verdict, each juror must agree thereto; "(ii) that jurors have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if it can be done without violence to individual judgment; 1984In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), the Supreme Court disavowed the deadlocked jury instruction approved in Allen v United States, 164 US 492 ; 17 S Ct 154 ; 41 L Ed 528 (1896), and adopted the following ABA proposed instruction. "(a) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the court may give an instruction which informs the jury: "(i) that in order to return a verdict, each juror must agree thereto; "(ii) that jurors have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if it can be done without violence to individual judgment; | 2 | 1984–2020 |
People v. Ginther
green
2 sentences2018“A defendant must move the trial court for a new trial or evidentiary hearing to preserve the defendant’s claim that his or her counsel was ineffective.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 68 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014), citing People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 2018“A defendant must move the trial court for a new trial or evidentiary hearing to preserve the defendant’s claim that his or her counsel was ineffective.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 68 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014), citing People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Carines
green
1 sentence2021Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appeal, id., and is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2021Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appeal, id., and is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights, Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences2019We note, however, that the fairness of the trial court’s sentence was raised by defendant as a basis for resentencing, independent of defendant’s challenge to the deadlocked-jury instruction. 14 fairness. [People v Hill, 221 Mich App 391, 398 ; 561 NW2d 862 (1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] See also People v Patton, 497 Mich 959 (2015) (declining to reassign the case to a new judge on remand when the Court was not persuaded that the standards set forth in Hill had been met); Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 163 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992) (reassigning the case to a different judge on re 2019We note, however, that the fairness of the trial court’s sentence was raised by defendant as a basis for resentencing, independent of defendant’s challenge to the deadlocked-jury instruction. 14 fairness. [People v Hill, 221 Mich App 391, 398 ; 561 NW2d 862 (1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] See also People v Patton, 497 Mich 959 (2015) (declining to reassign the case to a new judge on remand when the Court was not persuaded that the standards set forth in Hill had been met); Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 163 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992) (reassigning the case to a different judge on re | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Lukity
green
1 sentence2019Lukity, 460 Mich at 495-496 .6 6 Defendant argues in his supplemental brief that because the jury was deadlocked for a time and received a deadlocked jury instruction from the trial court, it was evident that the jury’s decision was a difficult one that relied on all of the evidence admitted at trial and that the jurors’ “tie- breaker” must have been the “forbidden” evidence of defendant’s prior weapons-related convictions. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sparks v. Sparks
green
2 sentences2019We note, however, that the fairness of the trial court’s sentence was raised by defendant as a basis for resentencing, independent of defendant’s challenge to the deadlocked-jury instruction. 14 fairness. [People v Hill, 221 Mich App 391, 398 ; 561 NW2d 862 (1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] See also People v Patton, 497 Mich 959 (2015) (declining to reassign the case to a new judge on remand when the Court was not persuaded that the standards set forth in Hill had been met); Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 163 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992) (reassigning the case to a different judge on re 2019We note, however, that the fairness of the trial court’s sentence was raised by defendant as a basis for resentencing, independent of defendant’s challenge to the deadlocked-jury instruction. 14 fairness. [People v Hill, 221 Mich App 391, 398 ; 561 NW2d 862 (1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] See also People v Patton, 497 Mich 959 (2015) (declining to reassign the case to a new judge on remand when the Court was not persuaded that the standards set forth in Hill had been met); Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 163 ; 485 NW2d 893 (1992) (reassigning the case to a different judge on re | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Unger
green
2 sentences2019“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 235 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). 2019“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 235 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Richard I. Berger, United States of America v. Richard I. Berger
green
1 sentence2019The trial court’s instruction must not contain “undue pressure, threats, embarrassing assertions, or other wording that would tend to force a decision or cause a juror to abandon his conscientious dissent and defer to 7 Berger, 473 F3d at 1089 . 8 People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324, 334 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974). 9 Id. at 337 . 10 People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich 555, 559 ; 309 NW2d 182 (1981). 11 Sullivan, 392 Mich at 334 . 12 Hardin, 421 Mich at 315. 5 the majority.”13 Additional language will “rarely” be considered a substantial departure if it “contains ‘no pressure, threats, embarrassing assertions, | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Renico v. Lett
green
1 sentence2016Renico, 559 US at 775 . [The United States Supreme Court] [has] never required a trial judge, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to force the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time, to question the jurors individually, to consult with (or obtain the consent of) either the prosecutor or defense counsel, to issue a supplemental jury instruction, or to consider any other means of breaking the impasse. [Id. (emphasis supplied).] Additionally, while the jury did deliberate for a relatively short time in defendant’s first trial, the testimony in defendant’s first trial cons | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Cameron
green
2 sentences2015People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011). 2015People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 617 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.