Alex Rivera was charged with eleven criminal counts in connection with a home break-in.
During the course of deliberations, the jurors informed the court that they had found Rivera "not guilty" on six counts, but were deadlocked on the remaining five.
Over the defendant's objections, the judge refused to accept the partial verdict and ordered the jurors to deliberate on all counts, including those they had already decided. And, the next day, the jury returned with a complete verdict, finding Rivera guilty of 10 of the 11 counts.
Although Rivera argued that that the judge's actions were wrongful, the Appellate Division, Second Department, didn't agree.
When the dispute reached our state's highest court, that forum thought the trial judge had two options when he was presented with a partial verdict: He could have allowed the jury to deliver the partial verdict, and permitted them to resume deliberations on the remaining counts, or, ordered that they continue deliberations on all counts.
By rejecting the partial verdict, the Court of Appeals thought the trial judge was "signaling" to the jury that the outcome was wrong; conduct seen as "coercive" in nature and depriving Rivera of his right to a fair trial.
Too many wrong mistakes.
To view a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision, please use this link: People v. Rivera