People of Michigan v. Harold Lamont Walker, 327063

Defendant Harold Lamont Walker, a convicted felon, was tried for felon-in-possession, carrying a concealed weapon, and a third-offense felony-firearm; three Detroit officers testified they saw him throw a gun into bushes.
A friend (Williams) later testified he hid the gun, claiming Walker was on parole and should not be near a weapon.
After about 1 hour 15 minutes of deliberations a juror reported a deadlock; the trial judge declined the standard M Crim JI 3.12 deadlock instruction and instead gave a nonstandard charge urging continued deliberations and encouraging jurors to notify the court if anyone was failing to follow instructions.
About 1 hour 27 minutes after that charge the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict; the dissenting appellate judge found the charge coercive because it omitted admonitions that jurors need not abandon honest convictions and implied penalty for holding out.
At sentencing the trial judge assessed 10 points under OV 19 for interference with administration of justice based on the judge’s belief Williams may have lied and been influenced by Walker; the dissent found no evidentiary support for that inference.
The dissenting judge also described the trial judge’s courtroom demeanor and exchange with Walker at sentencing as intemperate and biased, arguing the judge should be disqualified for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s supplemental instruction to a reportedly deadlocked jury was coercive	The People implicitly argue the instruction was acceptable and, read in context, not coercive	Walker contends the instruction omitted key protections (must not abandon honest beliefs; must fairly consult dissenters) and coerced a verdict	Dissent would reverse conviction for coercive supplemental instruction; majority disagreed (opinion excerpt is dissenting view)
Whether OV 19 properly scored 10 points for interference with administration of justice	Prosecution/majority supported OV 19 scoring, pointing to circumstances suggesting Williams lied to help defendant	Walker argued there was no evidence he conspired with Williams; scoring was conjecture, not supported by preponderance of evidence	Dissenting judge would vacate OV 19 scoring as unsupported; majority upheld it (per context)
Whether the trial judge’s conduct at sentencing warrants disqualification and resentencing	People proceeded under the sentencing determination and judge’s demeanor as legitimate judicial reaction	Walker argued the judge’s insults, hostile colloquy, and emotional comments show bias affecting sentence selection	Dissent would order resentencing before a different judge due to demonstrated bias; majority did not grant that relief in the panel decision excerpted

People v Sullivan, 392 Mich. 324 (1974) (deadlocked-jury supplemental-instruction principles: encourage deliberation without coercion)
People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich. 555 (1981) (jurors need not surrender honest convictions to reach unanimity)
United States v Sawyers, 423 F.2d 1335 (4th Cir. 1970) (model for a calm, balanced effort by a judge to induce a verdict)
State v Figueroa, 190 N.J. 219 (2007) (supplemental charge lacking reminder that jurors may keep honest convictions is coercive)
People v Hardin, 421 Mich. 296 (1984) (instruction that may cause jurors to abandon conscientious dissent should not be used)
People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (2013) (sentencing-guidelines factual findings reviewed for clear error and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence)