Semega v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “that a second juror originally agreed with the replaced juror” indicated “that the juror had not refused to deliberate but had simply reached a different decision than that of the other jurors”
• “Under the circumstances, further investigation would have been necessary to establish additional evidence of failure to deliberate or juror misconduct before resorting to the extraordinary step of replacing a juror with an alternate.”
• Given that the jury was deadlocked, the trial court should not have relied solely on the foreperson’s assertion that a juror was refusing to participate, but 40 should have conducted further inquiry before replacing the juror with an alternate.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).