In the case of Dietz v. Bouldin (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court has the power to recall a jury after it has been discharged, if there is reason to believe that their verdict may be legally impermissible or erroneous. The case arose from an automobile accident where Rocky Dietz sued Hillary Bouldin for negligence and demanded $10,000 in damages. The jury returned with a verdict stating that Bouldin was at fault but awarded no damages to Dietz which was contradictory and potentially unlawful as liability without damage award is inconsistent under Montana law. After realizing this error post-discharge, the judge recalled jurors within minutes before they left courthouse premises or had any chance of exposure to external influences related to trial matters; then ordered them back into deliberations resulting in an amended verdict granting Dietz his requested compensation amounting $15k instead of zero dollars initially decided upon by them.

In the dissenting opinion for Dietz v. Bouldin, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision to allow a judge to recall a jury after it has been discharged is not supported by historical practice or federal rules of criminal procedure. He contended that once a jury has reached its verdict and been dismissed from service, their duty is complete and they should not be recalled for further deliberations. This view was based on his interpretation of Rule 23(b) which states that in civil cases, juries may only be excused with prejudice (meaning they cannot be recalled). Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential coercion or influence on jurors during the period between dismissal and recall as well as possible violations of defendants' rights under the Sixth Amendment.