Background
A jury found Angel A. guilty of attempted murder, first-degree assault, and criminal violation of a protective order after he stabbed his girlfriend three times in the back. After the foreperson announced the verdict and the jurors collectively confirmed their agreement, the trial judge accepted the verdict, told the jurors that their service had ended and that they were free from their oath, and directed them to return briefly to the jury room.
The judge later entered the jury room for an off-the-record conversation. After five to seven minutes, juror C.A. said that she felt “a little guilty about the attempted murder charge.” The judge did not ask why and disclosed the comment to counsel two days later. At a subsequent hearing, C.A. stated that she “absolutely did” agree with the verdict when it was announced. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, and the defendant obtained certified review in the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. Although the defendant never requested a jury poll, the court reviewed his polling claim because it arose after trial, when C.A. made the remark and the defendant had no opportunity to respond. The court held that the jury had already been discharged when C.A. spoke: the judge had released the jurors from their oath, they no longer had reason to believe they remained under court supervision, and they had an opportunity for outside contact. Their off-the-record conversation with the judge also created an outside influence that would undermine the reliability of a later poll. Accordingly, even immediate disclosure would not have permitted polling under Practice Book § 42-31.
The court also rejected the defendant’s unpreserved constitutional claim. C.A.’s statement expressed emotion about the consequences of the guilty verdict, not disagreement, uncertainty, or equivocation about the verdict itself. Nothing showed that the court accepted a nonunanimous verdict, and C.A. later emphatically confirmed that she had agreed when the verdict was announced. The defendant therefore failed to establish a violation of his right to a unanimous jury verdict.
Key Takeaways
- A jury may no longer be polled after discharge, which occurs when jurors are released from their oath and may be exposed to outside influences—not merely when they physically leave the courthouse.
- A juror’s expression of guilt or concern about a verdict’s consequences does not, without more, establish disagreement with the verdict or a lack of unanimity.
- Trial courts should immediately disclose significant juror remarks, narrowly tailor any resulting inquiry, and avoid off-the-record postverdict meetings with jurors.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that the ability to poll a Connecticut criminal jury depends on whether the jurors remain subject to the court’s control and insulated from outside influence. Expressly releasing jurors from their oath can terminate that ability even if they remain together in the jury room.
The court also warned that informal postverdict conversations between judges and jurors can unexpectedly implicate deliberations, create uncertainty about a verdict, and potentially require further proceedings or a new trial.