Dean v. Gage County, Nebraska, et al

Filing 381

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MISTRIAL - The defendants' motion for mistrial is granted. My judicial assistant shall arrange and schedule a telephone conference with counsel in approximately 7 to 10 days at which time the lawyers and I will discuss a new trial date and related matters. Member Cases: 4:09-cv-03144-RGK-CRZ et al.Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al.,
)
Defendants.
LOIS P. WHITE, as Personal Representative )
)
of the Estate of
)
Joseph White, deceased,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
KATHLEEN A. GONZALEZ,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
THOMAS W. WINSLOW,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
ADA JOANN TAYLOR,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
DEBRA SHELDEN,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al.,
)
Defendants.
JAMES L. DEAN,

4:09CV3144

4:09CV3145

4:09CV3146

4:09CV3147

4:09CV3148

4:11CV3099

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MISTRIAL
After three weeks of trial and slightly more than three days of deliberation, the foreperson
of the jury and one other person advised in writing that unanimous agreement was unlikely and
sought my advice. With the agreement of counsel, and in their presence, I questioned the entire
jury.

After some initial confusion, several jurors expressly indicated that no verdict had been
reached on any claim. Other jurors thought that tentative agreement on one or more claims may
have been reached, but they also agreed that no final decision had been reached.
Furthermore, about six members of the jury indicated that further discussions would not
be fruitful. The other half thought further deliberations might be fruitful or were uncertain.
Following the questioning of the jurors, I heard the views of counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel
asked that I require further deliberations. In contrast, the defendants moved for a mistrial.
Recognizing that, since deliberations commenced, several ostensible jury instructions
questions were propounded by the jury essentially asking me to apply disputed facts to the
elements which, obviously, I could not do; recognizing, after deliberations commenced, that a
juror had earlier complained about another juror; recognizing the large trial record and the
complexity and difficulty of this case; recognizing that the final jury instructions contained a
modified “Allen” charge intended to stress the importance of trying to reach agreement; and
hoping to avoid coercing the jurors to agree when in fact there was no consensus, I granted the
motion for mistrial.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The defendants’ motion for mistrial is granted.
2. My judicial assistant shall arrange and schedule a telephone conference with counsel
in approximately 7 to 10 days at which time the lawyers and I will discuss a new trial date and
related matters.
January 30, 2014

BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2