Teresa Wagner v. Carolyn Jones
758 F.3d 1030
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wagner sued Jones (Dean of the Iowa College of Law) in her individual capacity and for official relief; the case involved two constitutional claims (political discrimination and equal protection) proceeding to trial in October 2012.
- Jury deliberations began Oct. 22–24, 2012; after a question, the court considered an Allen charge; the jury indicated they could not reach a verdict.
- A mistrial was declared after the jury stated inability to agree on both counts; the magistrate judge later recalled and questioned the jury post-mistrial, and then reassembled them to obtain a verdict on Count I while Count II remained unresolved.
- The magistrate judge later amended the mistrial ruling to limit it to Count II and the clerk entered judgment on Count I in favor of Jones; Wagner moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The circuit court reversed, holding the magistrate judge lacked authority to reconvene after mistrial and that the district court applied an erroneous standard; the case was remanded for a new trial and for reconsideration of jury instructions on First Amendment political discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recall after mistrial was permissible | Wagner | Jones | Magistrate erred recalling jurors; not permissible after mistrial and discharge. |
| Standard for granting a new trial | Wagner | Jones | District court abused discretion; remand for new trial. |
| Jury instructions on political discrimination burden | Wagner | Jones | Instructions inadequate; remand to readdress burden shifting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. United States, 11 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1926) (jurors may remain undischarged to correct errors)
- Figueroa v. United States, 683 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2012) (recalling a discharged jury may be permissible in some contexts)
- Rojas v. United States, 617 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 2010) (recalling discharged juries after mistrials in certain cases)
- Melton v. Commonwealth, 111 S.E.2d 291 (Va. 1922) (discharged juries generally cannot amend verdicts)
- Spears v. Mills, 69 S.W.3d 407 (Ark. 2002) (mingling after discharge raises concerns about outside influence)
- Camden v. Circuit Court of Second Judicial Circuit, 892 F.2d 610 (7th Cir. 1989) (after discharge, recalling a jury is problematic)
- Porret v. City of New York, 169 N.E.2d 280 (N.Y. 1929) (discharged jurors no longer act as a jury; cannot reconstitute verdicts)