Background
Harvey Linder was convicted after a jury trial of three aggravated-assault counts, a Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act violation, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The evidence showed that Linder and Brandon Johnson fired into Keisha Hall’s home in retaliation for a gang-related conflict involving Hall’s son; Hall’s teenage daughter was struck by a bullet.
During deliberations, the jury reported it was deadlocked and received an Allen charge. A juror then asked to be replaced. At Linder’s request, the trial court questioned the juror several times about whether personal experiences involving people he believed had been wrongly convicted were affecting his ability to decide the case solely on the trial evidence. The juror ultimately said he could be fair and was trying to assess the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Linder’s motion for new trial. Because Linder did not contemporaneously object to the questioning, the court reviewed his claim under the demanding plain-error standard.
The court held that the judge did not express an opinion on a disputed fact or on Linder’s guilt in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. Read in context, the questions were an effort to determine whether the juror could perform his duty and were often asked at Linder’s request. The inquiry also was not coercive: the judge did not urge the juror to abandon an honest view or tell him how to vote.
Key Takeaways
- An unobjected-to claim that a judge improperly commented on the evidence is reviewed for plain error.
- A trial court may question a deliberating juror to determine whether bias or outside considerations prevent the juror from performing the duty to deliberate.
- Repeated juror questioning is not coercive where the court does not direct the juror toward a verdict or pressure the juror to abandon an honest conviction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between a permissible inquiry into a juror’s ability to deliberate fairly and an impermissible judicial comment on guilt or disputed facts. Context matters, particularly where the juror gives equivocal answers about relying on personal experiences outside the record.
It also illustrates the importance of a contemporaneous objection. On plain-error review, an appellant must show a clear error that likely affected the outcome and seriously impaired the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.