When a case is finally submitted to the jury, they must be kept together in some convenient place, under the charge of an officer, until they agree upon a verdict or are discharged by the court. The officer having them in charge shall not suffer any communication to be made to them, or make any himself, except to ask them whether they have agreed upon a verdict, unless by order of the court; nor shall he communicate to anyone, before the verdict is delivered, any matter in relation to the state of their deliberations. If the jury are permitted to separate during the trial, they shall be admonished by the court that it is their duty not to converse with or suffer themselves to be addressed by any other person on the subject of the trial, nor to listen to any conversation on the subject; and it is their duty not to form or express an opinion thereon until the cause is finally submitted to them.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1946–2022 · leading case:
State v. Barranco
State v. Barranco (2009)
neb · cites it 19×
“And the court's expression of its disagreement with § 29-2022 neither harmed Barranco nor suggested any bias against him.”
State v. Molina (2006)
neb · cites it 4×
“(Hi) Analysis Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 1995), after submission of a criminal case to the jury, the defendant has the right to have the jury kept together until the jury agrees upon a verdict or is discharged by the court, and this right may be waived only by…”
State v. Robbins (1980)
neb · cites it 18×
“Section 29-2022, R. R. S. 1943, is a part of the code of criminal procedure.”
State v. Bao (2002)
neb · cites it 5×
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 1995) provides: *452 When a case is finally submitted to the jury, they must be kept together in some convenient place, under the charge of an officer, until they agree upon a verdict or are discharged by the court.”
State v. Ryan (1989)
neb · cites it 4×
“The trial court denied the request, but did order the jury sequestered during its deliberations, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 1985).”
State v. McMillion (2016)
nebctapp · cites it 2×
“As a result, we find no error in the district court’s denial of McMillion’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.”
State v. Floyd (2007)
neb · cites it 4×
“Such limits are set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 1995), which provides in relevant part: When a case is finally submitted to the jury, they must be kept together in some convenient place, under the charge of an officer, until they agree upon a verdict or are…”
State v. Nesbitt (2002)
neb · cites it 2×
“See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 1995); State v.”
State v. Bradley (1990)
neb · cites it 2×
“Such a statement does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that Bradley was prejudiced by the district court’s failure to sequester the jury.”
State v. Boppre (1990)
neb · cites it 2×
“The district court denied his request but, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 1989), ordered the jury sequestered during its deliberations and, throughout the trial, repeatedly admonished the jury not to discuss the case among themselves or with anyone else, not…”
State v. Madren (2021)
neb · cites it 2×
“8 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2022 (Reissue 2016) states that once a case has been submitted, the jury shall have no communication with nonjurors, in order to ensure that an accused receives the right of an impartial jury and to shield the jury from improper conduct by jurors during…”
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.