Showers v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Mahan v. State

    508 So. 2d 1180 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 51 times

    "In the present case, the trial court did not indicate to the jury by his words or conduct that he 'expected' a verdict, see Orr v. State, 40 Ala. App. 45, 111 So.2d 627 affd, 269 Ala. 176, 111 So.2d 639 (1959), or that he hoped the 'holdout' juror would agree with the majority, see Ashford v. McKee, 183 Ala. 620, 62 So. 879 (1913). More importantly, he neither inquired about, see Showers v. State, 407 So.2d 167 (Ala.Cr.App.), rev'd, 407 So.2d 169 (Ala. 1981), nor referred to, see Gidley v. State, supra, the 11-1 numerical division when he sent the jury back for further deliberations: " 'It is quite clear that under Alabama law a trial judge may urge a jury to resume deliberations and cultivate a spirit of harmony so as to reach a verdict, as long as the court does not suggest which way the verdict should be returned and duress or coersion is not used.' Showers v. State, 407 So.2d at 171.

  2. Richardson v. State

    508 So. 2d 289 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times

    "Showers v. State, 407 So.2d 167, 169 (Ala.Crim.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 407 So.2d 169 (Ala. 1981). In its opinion the Alabama Supreme court stated,

  3. Channell v. State

    477 So. 2d 522 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 21 times
    In Channell v. State, 477 So.2d 522, 525 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), we said that the informants' veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are highly relevant in determining probable cause under the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test as adopted by Gates, supra.

    In the present case, the trial court did not indicate to the jury by his words or conduct that he "expected" a verdict, see Orr v. State, 40 Ala. App. 45, 111 So.2d 627, affirmed, 269 Ala. 176, 111 So.2d 639 (1958), or that he hoped the "holdout" juror would agree with the majority, see Ashford v. McKee, 183 Ala. 620, 62 So. 879 (1913). Most importantly, he neither inquired about, see Showers v. State, 407 So.2d 167 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, 407 So.2d 169 (Ala. 1981), nor referred to, see Gidley v. State, supra, the 11-1 numerical division when he sent the jury back for further deliberations: "It is quite clear that under Alabama law a trial judge may urge a jury to resume deliberations and cultivate a spirit of harmony so as to reach a verdict, as long as the court does not suggest which way the verdict should be returned and no duress or coercion is used."