The North Dakota Supreme Court convened on November 27, 2024, to address the case of State v. Taylor, focusing primarily on the issue of jury unanimity in the verdicts delivered during the trial. The session began with procedural remarks, followed by arguments presented by legal representatives.

The central argument from the defense, represented by Mr. Taylor, contended that the verdicts were not unanimous due to a lack of response from juror number two. However, the prosecution, led by Mr. Ingold, countered this claim by referencing the court's record, which indicated that all jurors had affirmed the verdicts during polling. Mr. Ingold emphasized that the court had confirmed the unanimous nature of the verdicts both at the time they were delivered and in a subsequent written order from the district court.

The discussion highlighted that the defense had the opportunity to present evidence or witnesses to support their claim of non-unanimity but failed to do so. The court noted that the defense could have called trial counsel or jurors to testify, but chose not to. This led to the assertion that the defense's argument lacked sufficient factual support.

The justices engaged in a dialogue regarding the nature of the hearing that had previously taken place, clarifying that it was primarily an argument-based session without new evidence being introduced. The court's focus remained on the established record, which consistently supported the assertion of a unanimous verdict.

In conclusion, the North Dakota Supreme Court's proceedings on this date underscored the importance of jury unanimity and the procedural responsibilities of the defense in substantiating claims of error. The court's deliberations will likely influence the outcome of the appeal, as the emphasis on the established record and the lack of counter-evidence from the defense were pivotal points in the discussions. Further developments in this case will be awaited as the court continues its review.