In Dietz v. Bouldin, the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a federal district court can recall a jury it has already discharged, or whether it can only remedy the error by ordering a new trial. It held that a federal district court has the inherent power to recall a jury for further deliberations after identifying an error in the jury's verdict, although the power is limited in duration and scope, and a district court must exercise it carefully to avoid prejudice. With its holding, the Supreme Court resolved confusion among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on whether and when a federal district court has the authority to recall a jury after discharging it.
On June 9, 2016, in Dietz v. Bouldin, the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a federal district court can recall a jury it has already discharged, or whether it can only remedy the error by ordering a new trial. It held that a federal district court has the inherent power to recall a jury for further deliberations after identifying an error in the jury's verdict, although the power is limited in duration and scope, and a district court must exercise it carefully to avoid prejudice ( (June 9, 2016)). With its holding, the Supreme Court resolved confusion among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on whether and when a federal district court has the authority to recall a jury after discharging it.
The case arose out of a car accident and subsequent lawsuit between the petitioner, Rocky Dietz, and the respondent, Hillary Bouldin. Dietz sued Bouldin for negligence after the accident and Bouldin removed the case to federal court. At trial, Bouldin admitted fault and stipulated to medical expenses of $10,136, leaving the jury to decide the sole issue of whether to award damages to Dietz above the stipulated amount. During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking whether Dietz' medical expenses had already been paid, and if so, by whom. Although the judge expressed concern that the jury did not understand that a verdict of less than the stipulated amount would require a mistrial, the judge responded to the jury only that the information sought was irrelevant. The parties consented to the judge's response.
After continuing deliberations, the jury found in Dietz' favor, but awarded $0 in damages. The court discharged the jury, but then realized that the jury's $0 verdict was not legally possible because of the parties' previously stipulated damages award. A few minutes later, the judge sought to recall the jurors. Dietz' attorney objected, arguing that the jury was no longer capable of a fair and impartial verdict. However, the judge recalled the jury after confirming with the clerk and the jurors that all but one juror had remained in the courthouse after being discharged, and none of them had spoken with anyone about the case. The judge explained the mistake in not awarding the stipulated damages, and ordered the jury to deliberate anew.
The next day, the jury reassembled and returned a verdict for Dietz in the amount of $15,000. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award. The Supreme Court granted Dietz' petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve confusion among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on whether and when a federal district court has the authority to recall a jury after discharging it.
The Supreme Court held that a federal district court has the inherent power to recall a jury after it has been discharged. However, it held that the power to recall a jury:
Is limited in duration and scope such that it:
must be a reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court; and
cannot be contrary to any express grant or limitation of power in a rule or statute.
Must be exercised carefully to avoid prejudice and tainting the jurors.
Is limited to civil cases only.
Based on this analysis, the Court found that the district court's decision to recall the jury was lawful because:
The court had not yet issued a final judgment.
Rescinding the order discharging the jury did not violate any other rule or statute.
The jury was only out for a few minutes, only one juror exited the courthouse, and no juror spoke with anyone after discharge.
In its opinion, the Court identified several factors to use to determine potential prejudice, including:
The length of delay between discharge and recall (the longer the delay, the greater the likelihood of prejudice).
Whether the jurors spoke to anyone about the case after being discharged.
Reaction to the verdict (for example, shock, gasps, crying, or cheers), whether in the courtroom as the verdict is announced or elsewhere in the courthouse after discharge.
Whether recently-dismissed jurors accessed their smartphones or the internet, which also may potentially prejudice jurors.