Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 234A
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 234A, § 68C (2026)

Failure of jury to agree

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 68C. If a jury, after due and thorough deliberation, returns to court without having agreed on a verdict, the court may state anew the evidence or any part of the evidence, explain to them anew the law applicable to the case and send them out for further deliberation; but if they return a second time without having agreed on a verdict, they shall not be sent out again without their own consent, unless they ask from the court some further explanation of the law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Tiscione, 124 N.E.3d 690 (Mass. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Tiscione, 124 N.E.3d 690 (Mass. 2019). “" See G. L. c. 234A, § 68C. Nevertheless, in these circumstances, an attempt must first be made to determine whether the juror's purported inability to continue deliberations is a "demonstrable reality" (citation omitted).”
Nicholas Sicellon v. Commonwealth / Jerion Moore v. Commonwealth, 250 N.E.3d 541 (Mass. 2025). · cites it 5× “" Counsel for Sicellon asked to be heard, and he specifically argued that G. L. c. 234A, § 68C,[4] allowed the trial judge to ask the jurors whether they consented to further deliberations.”
Karen Read v. Commonwealth, 250 N.E.3d 551 (Mass. 2025). · cites it 4× “It was only when the jury submitted their third report of deadlock, at which point the judge was statutorily precluded from ordering them to continue deliberations without their consent, see G. L. c. 234A, § 68C, that the judge declared a mistrial.”
Commonwealth v. Brandon M. Bamford., 277 N.E.3d 1028 (Mass. App. Ct. 2026). · cites it 4× “For the first time on appeal, the defendant argues that the judge coerced the jury and violated G. L. c. 234A, § 68C, when he gave the Tuey-Rodriquez charge, ordering the jury to continue deliberating after they had twice reported being deadlocked.”
Read v. Norfolk Cnty. Superior Court, 133 F.4th 128 (1st Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 234A, § 68C. However, after the first note, the court declined to give the instruction and sent the jury back to keep deliberating because it concluded that there had not yet been sufficient time for the jury to have engaged in "due and thorough deliberations.”
Commonwealth v. Curtis Stubbs., 261 N.E.3d 910 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “Here, after the judge found that they had engaged in "due and thorough deliberation," G. L. c. 234A, § 68C, jurors twice reported being at an impasse, but the judge ordered further deliberations on only one of those occasions.”
Commonwealth v. Bazinet, 94 N.E.3d 439 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). “36, § 1, and the language of § 34 was reenacted as G. L. c. 234A, § 68C. See St. 2016, c. 36, § 5.”
Commonwealth v. Obdulio Acevedo., No. 21-P-0238 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 10, 2023). “When the jury reported again that they were at an impasse, the judge properly conferred with counsel prior to issuing the Tuey- Rodriquez instruction, and found that there had been "due and thorough deliberations," as required by G. L. c. 234A, § 68C. See Commonwealth v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.