Court of Appeals of Iowa Finds No Issues in Case in Which Judge Saw Scared Female Juror Being Berated by Male Juror on Deadlocked Jury

What should a trial judge do if he overhears a male juror acting aggressively toward a female juror to the point where it’s clear that she’s scared? That was the question that was somewhat addressed by the Court of Appeals of Iowa in its opinion yesterday in Davis v. State, 2025 WL 1453344 (Iowa App. 2025). 

In Davis, “Jerris Davis Sr. was charged with domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, third or subsequent offense, after his girlfriend called the police and reported that he had assaulted her.” At the close of the case, “[a]fter the jury deliberated for about an hour, they sent a question to the court: ‘What happens if we cannot come to a unanimous decision? How long do we wait?'” The parties and the judge then agreed to an Allen charge telling the jurors to keep deliberating.

Several hours later, the judge then overheard an argument between two jurors. The judge then told the parties what he heard:

I will let you both know, as I was entering into this courtroom through the judge’s hallway rounding the corner here behind me, so the length of the courtroom—of this courtroom to go yet before we reach the next courtroom where the jury is currently deliberating, there was a heated exchange to the point I was concerned someone was going to get physical. It was clear by a female’s voice that she was scared. She was asking for a break. She was pleading for a break. Let’s take a break, let’s take a break, she said at least three or four times while a male voice became more and more loud and more and more aggressive.

I immediately grabbed my court attendant and told her to intervene and insist upon a break, separate them, get them outside, fresh air. That was probably hour and a half ago to an hour ago. After they took a break, they did apparently go back to work and then we ended up with question number 2 here. 

Question number 2 related to a second split among the jury, this time informing the judge that there was a 10-2 deadlock. In response, the judge gave another Allen charge at the end of the day of deliberations. The following day, “after about an hour of deliberating, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for the lesser-included offense of domestic abuse assault. Defense counsel chose not to poll the jury.”

Davis thereafter claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move for a mistrial; and (2) deciding not to poll the jury after their verdict.

On the first point, the court credited trial counsel’s testimony that Davis told him he didn’t want a mistrial and do-over.

On the second point, the court ruled as follows:

We also reject Davis’s claim about trial counsel’s decision not to poll the jury. Counsel testified that decision was a judgment call based on more than thirty years of experience in criminal defense: “I just had never had anything come from it, knew that it made some jurors uncomfortable, so I stopped doing it.” Davis does not cite any authority suggesting that a failure to poll a jury is a per se breach of essential duty….And “[m]iscalculated trial strategies and mere mistakes in judgment normally do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.”…

In any event, assuming that counsel performed deficiently by not polling the jury, the remedy when a juror “expresses disagreement on such poll or inquiry” is further deliberation….Davis made no effort to demonstrate that further deliberation would have resulted in a different outcome….He relies on the “heated exchange” overheard by the trial judge and the jury’s disclosure of their division the day before the guilty verdict was returned in suggesting there was undue influence. But our supreme court has recognized that “all jurors do not embrace a verdict with the same degree of enthusiasm,” with some “reach[ing] their decision reluctantly after considerable discussion and persuasion.”

I don’t find this conclusion compelling. First, it seems shocking that all the trial judge did after what he saw was to separate the jurors and have them get some fresh air. Was there not concern that things could come to blows based on what the judge observed? Second, the Court of Appeals spoke to there being no issue withe unenthusiastic jurors who change their vote based on “persuasion.” But again, what the trial judge observed seemed much more than simple “persuasion” and something that should have been explored after the verdict, if not before.

-CM