- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
Limiting Deliberations: Armacost v. Davis 2
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog explores legal issues in medical malpractice cases. In this post, I explore a significant circumstance in which the court limited deliberations, following a modified Allen charge. The case is the Court of Appeals reported opinion in Armacost v. Davis, 462 Md. 504 (2019). In part 1 of this post, we discussed the use of general negligence jury instructions in a medical malpractice case.
Factual Background
The plaintiff underwent surgery on his neck in which the defendant neurosurgeon removed discs and fused vertebrae. (Op. at 1, 3). An infection developed, and the plaintiff had neck pain and limited range of motion. (Id. at 3).
The plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant breached the care standard and failed to obtain informed consent. (Id. at 4). The trial began on Tuesday, May 17. During jury selection, the judge informed the jury that it expected the trial to take seven days and would finish no later than Wednesday, the 25th, shortly before Memorial Day weekend. (Id. at 4).
The court submitted the case to the jury on Monday, May 23, a day before the court had predicted. (Id. at 5). On the third day of deliberations, at 2:00 pm, the jury sent the court a note asking what would happen if the jury could not decide. (Id. at 11).
The court proposed giving the jury a “modified Allen charge” to encourage them to resolve, and limited deliberations to an additional hour to see if they could agree upon a verdict. No one discussed addressing the jury’s specific question as to what would happen if they failed to reach a verdict, nor did they discuss the precise wording of the modified Allen charge. (Id.).
The defense objected to the charge and proposed instructing the jury to return to deliberations and allowing them to deliberate until the end of the day. (Id. at 12).
Instructions
At 2:15 pm, the court instructed the jury, first responding to their question. The court’s response to the jury’s question was clear and decisive: “If eventually the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, a mistrial will be declared, and the parties would decide then if they were to try the case again or take some other actions. It would be up to them.” This response set the stage for the court’s subsequent actions.
Then the court gave a modified Allen charge from the Maryland pattern jury instructions. (Id.).
The court then issued a directive to the jury: “So I’m going to ask you to deliberate another hour. I know that you have been at it pretty hard. We have been in the courtroom and have heard you from time to time and can’t hear what you say. We just hear words being said…. And we will see if you can reach a verdict today…. I’m not going to ask you to return tomorrow, but I do want you to try again.” This instruction could have influenced the jury’s decision-making process.
An hour later, the jury reported its verdict. The jury found the defendants negligent and awarded $329,000 in damages. The jury also found for the defense on the informed consent claim. (Id.).
The doctor appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding that while the circuit court’s giving of the modified Allen charge was appropriate, the court abused its discretion by limiting deliberations in telling the jury that deliberations would continue just one more hour. The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeals. (Id. at 15).
Court of Appeals on Limiting Deliberations
On appeal, the defense contended the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the modified Allen charge and argued that imposing a one-hour deadline on deliberations was coercive. (Id. at 33).
The defense argued that the jury did not state it was deadlocked and asked what would happen if it did not reach a verdict. However, the Court of Appeals noted that there is no requirement of deadlock for an Allen charge. (Id.).
The court stated that a trial judge’s decision to keep the jury informed of the timetable for the trial does not necessarily convert an appropriate Allen charge into a coercive one. (Id. at 36). On the contrary, leaving the jurors in the dark would have likely raised concerns about when they would be allowed to stop deliberating. It also might have served to coerce a verdict to get to the end of jury service. (Id. at 37). Moreover, the trial judge specifically did not insist on a verdict. The judge said we’ll see if you can reach a verdict. (Id. at 38). The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err. (Id. at 39).
Two judges dissented, concluding that adding the one-hour time limit to the Allen charge was coercive. (Dis. at 1).
Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer on Limiting Deliberations
The majority and dissent present different views on the appropriateness of the trial judge’s statement that the jury would be given one more hour to deliberate. They each take different views of coerciveness. The majority focused on the trial court’s statement to the jury that their service would end that day. With only two hours left, the majority believed that sending the jury back to deliberate without any timing comment could be coercive. The jurors might wonder if they would have to return the next day if they did not return a verdict.
The dissent believed that telling the jury they only had an hour to deliberate was coercive.
It is impossible to say who is right. Ideally, the court is not limiting deliberations by telling the jury when their deliberations will end. However, the court should balance that against the schedule they have already told the jury. In this case, there was repeated emphasis from the beginning of the trial that this would be the last day of jury service. The jury had repeatedly raised concerns about when their service would end. There were only two hours left in the day. Under these circumstances, I don’t believe the trial court’s sending the jury back for one more hour of deliberations was improper, particularly since the court did not tell them to reach a verdict but instead said we will see if you can.
Regardless of how you view this issue, judicial economy favors upholding the trial court’s decision.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.