Skip to main content

Barnett v. State

Citations

  • 161 S.W.3d 128
  • 2005 WL 121727

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial when appellant only moved for mistrial without requesting the lesser alternative of jury questioning to prove jury misconduct
  • holding that coercion existed because trial court singled out two holdout jurors, informed them that it “had a problem” with them, and asked them if they could change their votes if sent back to deliberate further
  • holding that coercion existed because trial court singled 4 out two holdout jurors, informed them that it ―had a problem‖ with them, and asked them if they could change their votes if sent back to deliberate further
  • finding coercion where the trial court extensively polled the jury regarding the lack of unanimity and told two hold-out jurors it had a “problem” with them
  • noting principle that briefs should be liberally construed to serve the interests of justice
  • listing factors 3, 4, and 11, but focusing on factors 9 and 10

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Livingston, Dauphinot, Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

82 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.