Miller v. Miller
Citations
- 187 Pa. 572
- 41 A. 277
- 1898 Pa. LEXIS 844
Syllabus
<p>Practice, O. P. — Trial—Disagreement of jury — Erroneous charge.</p> <p>Where a jury has deliberated for two days, and then reports to the court that they stand ten to two, and that they are unable to agree, it is error for the court in a supplemental charge to say: “It is sometimes said by parties that they can’t conscientiously agree to a verdict. There is no conscience in the case; it is not a question of conscience at all; it is simply a question oí judgment. Men differ in their opinions as to the testimony, or as to questions of fact, or as to the propriety of a verdict. It is simply a difference in judgment and no question oí conscience whatever in the case.”</p> <p>A juror in reaching a conclusion as to a verdict must be guided by conscience in the different steps leading up to a conclusion, and he cannot at the mere behest oí his fellow jurors, or on the order of their trial judge, adopt another conclusion from that which he has conscientiously reached, for his oath enjoins that he, the juror, shall “a true verdict rendo- on the evidence.”</p> <p>After a jury has reported to the court that they stand ten to two, and that they are not able to agree, it is error for the court to say to them that if they do not agree it is not improbable that the public will suspect some of them of corruption, and to intimate that a disagreement might be due to self-will or stubbornness, a proper penalty for which offense would in; the disgrace of exclusion from the jury wheel and the posting of their unlitness in a public office, and finally that he could not think of discharging them even if they had to remain for weeks in the jury room.</p> <p>After a judge had told a jury which had reported a disagreement that they were bound to agree, and that he would keep them in the jury room for weeks, he further told them that after a verdict was received and entered he would hear anything that a juror would say, and would take any such statement into consideration, on a motion of
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing verdict where trial judge mandated jury's decision, threatening \penalties of both moral and physical suffering for disobedience\
- reputation evidence related to period four years before trial too remote
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. ChesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-03-20· cited 227×
- Commonwealth v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1959-12-31· cited 112×
- In Re Will of Amelia EverettSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1910-09-21· cited 35×
- Fischer v. SperlSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1905-04-28· cited 35×
- Commonwealth v. FudgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2019-06-20· cited 31×
- Marshall v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-07-01· cited 22×
- Hickman v. Fruehauf Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-08-17· cited 18×
- Hopkins v. TateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1916-07-01· cited 16×
- Commonwealth v. ShowersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-06-20· cited 15×
- Commonwealth v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-10-07· cited 15×
- Buechley's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-06-23· cited 10×
- Wilson WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1950-04-10· cited 10×
- Petition for Naturalization of FerroM.D. Pennsylvania· 1956-05-10· cited 5×
- Commonwealth v. GermondMercer County Court of Common Pleas· 1972-09-28
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.