Deliberations Must Begin Anew if Juror Is Replaced

A defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous jury was violated when an alternate was substituted for an indisposed juror during deliberations and the trial court told the reconstituted jury to just bring the alternate “up to speed” on what had already been discussed, the Washington Supreme Court ruled June 12. (State v. Lamar, 2014 BL 163565, Wash., No. 89060-9)

The constitutional requirement of unanimity means that all 12 members have reached a consensus after each individual juror has examined the evidence and exchanged with the other jurors various individual perceptions, experiences and assessments, the court said. “It is ...