reason not noted on the record, the substance of the third note was never communicated to defense counsel and the judge did not respond to the jury. The jury eventually returned a verdict of guilty. The Seventh Circuit held that the trial court’s delay, which may have been up to one hour, in responding to the jury’s request was not unreasonable. Id. The Seventh Circuit did not require further deliberations. Id. Similarly, in U.S. v. Spagnolo, 546 F.2d 1117, 1119-20 (4th Cir.1976), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, after sending a question to the judge, it is a jury’s decision whether to await an answer from the court or whether to resolve the question of guilt or innocence absent an answer to their inquiry. See also U.S. v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1553-54 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the trial court judge relayed
holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict holding jury verdict not inconsistent where jury unanimously determined that plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary to recovery despite jurys failure to answer other questions on the special verdict form holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial holding that delay of 112 to 2 hours in responding to jurys questions during which time the jury reached a verdict was not unreasonable