McIlwain v. United States

Background

A group of defendants convicted of second-degree burglary while armed say their trials were unfair because the jury foreperson appeared drunk during deliberations. The trial judge received a note from jurors, held private questioning, and heard that nine jurors believed the foreperson had been drinking. The judge suggested dismissing her, but when the defendants asked for a mistrial he instead ordered a three-day recess; on Monday he checked and found no continuing problem. The jury later acquitted on one charge but convicted on burglary, and the local appeals court upheld those convictions, saying the defendants had not proved they were prejudiced.

Reasoning

The central question is whether a juror’s intoxication during deliberations requires a new trial because it undermines the right to a fair proceeding. Justice Marshall’s dissent argues that every juror must be mentally competent and that a drunken juror can fatally taint deliberations. The appeals court relied on factors like only one juror being involved, a short questioned period, and the judge’s recess and follow-up. Marshall criticized a prior standard that requires proof of actual bias, calling it too hard to meet and urging stronger protection for competence in juries.

Real world impact

The dispute affects defendants, jurors, and trial judges: defendants worry that an impaired juror could change their fate, while judges must decide whether to dismiss a juror or declare a mistrial. Marshall warns that fair-trial protections may require new trials when a juror is clearly incapacitated, though he concedes such episodes are rare. Because the Court declined review here, the convictions remain in place and the broader rule is unresolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) dissented from the denial of review, urging the Court to reconsider the standard and to give defendants stronger remedies when a juror’s drunkenness may have tainted deliberations.