Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 768 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.16 (2026)

Jurors; liberty; oath and duty of officer in charge.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


768.16 Jurors; liberty; oath and duty of officer in charge.

Sec. 16.

    The jurors sworn to try a criminal action in any court of record in this state, may, at any time before the cause is submitted to the jury, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or to be kept in charge of proper officers. When an order shall have been entered by the court in which such action is being tried, directing said jurors to be kept in charge of such officers, the following oath shall be administered by the clerk of the court to said officers: "You do solemnly swear that you will, to the utmost of your ability, keep the persons sworn as jurors on this trial from separating from each other; that you will not suffer any communication to be made to them, or any of them, orally or otherwise; that you will not communicate with them, or any of them, orally or otherwise, except by the order of this court, or to ask them if they have agreed on their verdict, until they shall be discharged; and that you will not, before they render their verdict, communicate to any person the state of their deliberations or the verdict they have agreed upon, so help you God." And thereafter it shall be the duty of the officer so sworn to keep the jury from separating, or from receiving any communication of any character, until they shall have rendered their verdict, except under a special instruction in writing from the trial judge. After the jurors retire to consider their verdict, the court may permit the jurors to separate temporarily, whenever in his judgment such a separation is deemed proper: Provided, That in cases where separation of the members of a jury is now forbidden by law, the authority hereby granted shall not extend to permitting separation of the members of the jury of the same sex.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17309 ;-- CL 1948, 768.16

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 1 of Act 176 of 1893, being CL 1897, § 11960; CL 1915, § 15833; and Act 4 of 1909.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case: People v. Cain, 869 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Cain, 869 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 2× “99 For example, we would not say that the jurors were “sworn” if the they took the bailiff’s oath, MCL 768.16, the interpreter’s oath, MCL 393.”
People v. Nick, 103 N.W.2d 435 (Mich. 1960). · cites it 4× “CL 1948, § 768.16 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1039). What was done in the instant case rested in the discretion of the trial judge to permit.”
People v. Fields, 216 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 1974). · cites it 2× “MCLA 768.16; MSA 28.1039. (e) Whether to exclude evidence of alibi or insanity if the defendant fails to file a notice of such a defense.”
People v. Cazal, 316 N.W.2d 705 (Mich. 1982). “Neither is voir dire required in the absence of a jury. A trial judge, sitting as a factfinder, is not subject to any peremptory challenges.”
People v. McDonald, 196 N.W.2d 834 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “MCLA 768.16; MSA 28.1039. The stenographic transcript shows that the jurors began their deliberations at 10:04 a.”
People of Michigan v. Donald Kyle Raleigh, No. 317175 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2014). · cites it 4× “2 Next, defendant argues that the trial court made a plain error affecting his substantial rights when it discharged the jury to deliberate without requiring the bailiff to swear the oath provided under MCL 768.16. Defendant concedes that he did not preserve this issue by…”
Raleigh v. Winn, No. 4:18-cv-12949 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2021). · cites it 2× “Petitioner filed an appeal of right in the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising four claims: his custodial statement was involuntary, the trial court failed to administer the oath required under Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.16 , he should not have been convicted of first-degree felony…”
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.