|
|
|
| Allen Charge |
|
United States v. Yarborough,
No. 03-3141 (D.C. Cir., March 11, 2005): Winner!!! D.C. Circuit reverses a felon in possession of a firearem conviction on a faulty deadlocked jury instruction given by the trial court. The trial court snubbed the established instruction promulgated by the en banc D.C. Circuit and used a non-standard instruction (which appeared to miff the circuit). The circuit held that the use of the non-standard instruction was coercive and constituted plain error (there was no objection below). Good discussion of this issue and the so-called Allen charge.
|
|
|
United States v. Zabriskie,
No. 02-4228 (10th Cir., July 14, 2005) (Published): Interesting case involving the trial of a lawyer and his non-lawyer son for harboring a client/fugitive. Reversed and remanded for new trial when the trial judge addressed the lone hold-out juror (for acquittal) ex parte and administered an Allen charge to him. The Circuit held it was too coercive. Good discussion of Allen charges.
|
|
|
Johnson v. State,
No. F-2003-1083 (Okl.Cr., October 31, 2005) (Unpublished): Johnson was convicted in Tulsa of Trafficking AFCF and sentenced to LWOP(!) In this opinion, the Court reverses and remands for a new trial because of an error during jury deliberations where one juror was a hold-out and was pressured by the other jurors. The actual error was the trial court's failure to give a proper Allen instruction (deadlocked jury instruction) before sending the jury back for further deliberations (and this was plain error since trial counsel did not object). The issue here is supported by a good record both in the form of jury notes to the judge and on-the-record conversations between the trial court and the jurors. NOTE: Juror dissension and notes to the judge happen with some regularity in trials, probably more than you would think, and I have a sense that many trial lawyers are unclear on what to do when they happen. I have encountered this before and it is helpful to take your time (even when you have a judge breathing down your neck), think it through, and do some research if you can. If you are not sure what to do, it usually a good idea to lodge an objection on the record to whatever the judge and the State believe is the correct thing because usually it does not involve helping out your client.
|
|
|
Kendall Dewayne Carr v. State,
No. F-2005-1150 (Okl.Cr., October 30, 2006) (unpublished): Jury Instructions; Allen Charge: Convictions for Robbery by Force or Fear and False Personation (AFCF) are reversed and remanded for a new trial in this 3-2 decision on the basis that the trial court failed to give a proper Allen instruction (deadlocked jury instruction) by failing to inform the jury to not surrender their honest convictions and not to find a fact or concur in a verdict, which in good conscience any of them did not support. There was no objection at trial but the Court found PLAIN ERROR on this issue. The standard instruction on this issue is OUJI-CR 10-11 and it thus appears that deviation from this instruction is fertile grounds for reversal. Trial judge: Hon. Lori M. Walkley (Cleveland County).
|
|
|
United States v. Jones,
No. 06-15203 (11th Cir., October 22, 2007): Jury Instructions; Allen Charge: Statements by the trial court to deadlocked jury ("We will do this until you reach a verdict" and "There is no need of sending any notes that you can't agree, because you are going to stay here for a long time") were sufficiently coercive to constitute plain error. REVERSED.
|
|
|
|
