Okla. Stat. » Title 22 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 857 (2026)

Jury after the charge

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After hearing the charge, the jury may either decide in court, or may retire for deliberation. If they do not agree without retiring, one or more officers must be sworn to keep them together in some private and convenient place, and not to permit any person to speak to or communicate with them, nor do so themselves, unless it be by order of the court, or to ask them whether they have agreed upon a verdict, and to return them into court when they have so agreed, or when ordered by the court. R.L. 1910, § 5906. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 17, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 13, emerg. eff. June 19, 1998; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 8, eff. July 1, 1999. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 17 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 144 P.3d 838.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 144 P.3d 838. · cites it 8× “; 3) whether the bailiff informed the jury that if they did not reach a verdict that evening, the jury would have to accompany the foreperson to her doctor's appointment the next morning, and if such a statement was made whether the jury was coerced into reaching a verdict by…”
Johnson v. State, 2004 OK CR 23, 93 P.3d 41. · cites it 5× “Defense counsel complained at trial and it is argued again on appeal that sequestration was required at this time under title 22 O.S.2001, § 857. This statute provides: After hearing the charge, the jury may either decide in court, or may retire for deliberation.”
Mccauley v. State, 2024 OK CR 8, 548 P.3d 461. · cites it 8× “See also 22 O.S.2021, § 857 (a jury must be privately sequestered after hearing the charge and retiring to deliberate).”
Wood v. Carpenter, 907 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2018). “Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 857 (emphasis added).”
Lambert v. State, 2005 OK CR 26, 126 P.3d 646. · cites it 2× “3d 41, 48 (finding 22 O.S.2001, § 857 requires sequestration after the jury has heard instruction and argument, not after bailiff is sworn).”
Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34, 990 P.2d 875. · cites it 2× “¶ 62 On appeal, Mooney contends the following factors combined resulted in a coerced verdict: (1) the influence of the Allen charge; (2) the bailiff's improper communication with the jury; (3) the trial court's refusal to answer the jury's final question regarding what would…”
Frazier v. State, 2020 OK CR 7, 470 P.3d 296. · cites it 3× “Break in Jury Sequestration ¶4 Frazier argues he was denied due process of law because the district court allowed his jury to go to lunch, over defense counsel's objection, after the case was submitted for deliberations in violation of 22 O.S.2011, § 857. 1 He maintains this…”
Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7, 231 P.3d 1156. “Jury Separation ¶ 7 Without objection by counsel, the trial court judge permitted jurors to go home for the evening while they were still deliberating despite the requirement of 22 O.S.2001, § 857 that jurors be kept together until they have agreed on a verdict.”
Stiles v. State, 829 P.2d 984 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “There is no indication in the record that any of the jurors had a problem with this arrangement, but defense counsel requested the jury be kept overnight and allowed to begin deliberations the next day.”
Walker v. State, 887 P.2d 301 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “See 22 O.S.1981, § 857. 48 . Tr. 419 (emphasis added).”
Wackerly v. State, 2000 OK CR 15, 12 P.3d 1. “¶ 18 It is true that under 22 O.S.1991, § 857, the jury may not separate after they have begun deliberations.”
Mann v. State, 749 P.2d 1151 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “This is substantially different from the quote the unidentified person was supposed to have heard.”
Show all 47 citing cases →
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.