Verser v. Barfield

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison officials used excessive force while subduing plaintiff-prisoner in his cell, Dist. Ct. erred in removing plaintiff from courtroom and sending him back to prison at close of evidence and prior to giving plaintiff opportunity to seek jury poll following jury’s verdict in defendants’ favor. Civil litigant has right under Rule 48(c) to poll jury following adverse jury verdict, and failure to conduct properly requested jury poll is serious error that ordinarily requires reversal. Moreover, reversal of jury’s verdict is required here, where: (1) reason for plaintiff’s immediate removal from courtroom at close of evidence was not readily apparent; (2) Dist. Ct.’s action precluded plaintiff from having any input on jury question posed to Dist. Ct. regarding existence of prison video; and (3) jury’s foreperson gave post-verdict ambiguous statement regarding defendants’ actions in case that would have generated request for jury poll, especially where jury had initially reported that it was deadlocked in matter. Ct. rejected defendants’ claim that plaintiff should have requested jury poll prior to jury announcing its verdict.