People of Michigan v. Harold Lamont Walker, 934 N.W.2d 727

Defendant Harold Walker was tried for felon-in-possession, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm after police recovered a loaded revolver from a bush; defendant and an eyewitness claimed the gun had been placed there by the witness and that defendant tossed a beer bottle.
Jury began deliberations at 11:19 a.m.; about 75 minutes later the jury sent a note saying it was deadlocked. The court responded with an ad-lib supplemental instruction and sent the jury to lunch rather than reading the model deadlocked-jury (M Crim JI 3.12 / Allen) charge.
The ad‑lib instruction: rebuked the jury for “giving up” after a short deliberation, told them to go to lunch to clear their heads, twice invited jurors to report anyone “failing to follow instructions or refusing to participate,” but did not reiterate the usual honest-conviction reminder from the model charge.
The jury returned a guilty verdict roughly 90 minutes after resuming deliberations post‑lunch. Defendant was sentenced and appealed, arguing the supplemental instruction was coercive; Court of Appeals affirmed (split), and the Michigan Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court majority held the ad‑lib instruction omitted key safeguards, contained coercive language, and was delivered in a coercive atmosphere (including prior courtroom comments about a tardy juror), thus requiring reversal and a new trial before a different judge; two justices dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s ad‑lib deadlocked‑jury instruction was unduly coercive	The instruction merely urged further deliberation and a lunch break; no coercive language and judge reasonably concluded jurors hadn’t meaningfully deliberated after only ~75 minutes	The instruction lacked constructive guidance, omitted the honest‑conviction reminder, invited singling out dissenters, and was delivered in a coercive atmosphere — it coerced verdict	Majority: Instruction was unduly coercive (omitted safeguards, used coercive language, delivered in coercive atmosphere); conviction reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether reassignment to a different judge on remand was required	(Implicit) No reassignment necessary	Trial judge’s sentencing conduct displayed hostility and bias; judge could not be expected to set aside prior views	Majority: Reassignment required to preserve appearance of justice; retrial before different judge ordered

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) (authorizes supplemental jury instructions to encourage further deliberation)
People v. Sullivan, 392 Mich. 324 (1974) (adopted standard deadlocked‑jury instruction and warned against coercion)
People v. Hardin, 421 Mich. 296 (1984) (describes hallmarks of permissible Allen‑type charge and coercion limits)
People v. Pollick, 448 Mich. 376 (1995) (notations on greater coercive potential when jury already believes itself deadlocked)
Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) (court may insist jurors who have deliberated briefly continue deliberating)
People v. France, 436 Mich. 138 (1990) (trial court may require further deliberation after short deliberation)
People v. Engle, 118 Mich. 287 (1898) (reversal where jury was not told verdict must be juror’s own conviction)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain‑error standard articulated for unpreserved claims)