As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,

“Jimmie C. Green, 31, was convicted of a 2009 drive-by gang shooting in Racine that killed a 12-year-old boy. As part of his appeal, he claimed he might have been prejudiced by the trial judge passing some leftover Halloween candy to the jury.

More specifically, Green claimed his attorney was deficient for not moving for a mistrial when he learned that the jury had sent a thank-you note to the judge for the candy.

“Green argues that this indirect contact may have caused the jury ‘to view Mr. Green’s case as a ‘we vs. them’ matter,’ especially given the gang-related evidence,” the court wrote in a per curiam decision.

“At the Machner hearing, trial counsel testified that though he was initially concerned about how to handle the thank-you note, he did not feel it necessary to pursue the matter further once he heard the judge’s explanation. Trial counsel testified that he never felt an ‘us versus them’ dynamic in the courtroom.”

Apparently, the judge had given the candy to the bailiff to give the jury, not intending for jurors to know where it came from. But the bailiff mentioned the treats were courtesy of the judge.

“The record demonstrates that the trial court was well aware of the prohibition against ex parte communication with the jury and avoided any direct contact,” the appeals court found. “There is nothing improper about a neutral body providing leftover candy to the jury through the bailiff.”

So, tomorrow, when your child (or you) has leftover candy and you want to distribute it to jurors, tell the bailiff not to mention it came from the judge…and be sure to bring a sufficient number of tooth brushes for the jurors to use after they eat the candy.

Read more at Journal Sentinel.