Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02182/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amador Rodriguez-Mejia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH j_~· Ji. .i_J 1~ u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

United S::.J.tes C~;urt of Appcal:J 

Ter.th Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

TENTH CIRCUIT t.?R 0 1 1994 

·,OBERT L. HOECKER 

cr--.·= 

vs. I 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 93-2182 

AMAD0R RODRIGUEZ-MEJIA, 

\Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CR-93-29-JB) 

SubmJtted on the briefs:* 

RichJ rd C. Cauble, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for 

Defendant-Appellant. 

LarrJ

1 

Gomez, United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

Judit,h A. Patton, Assistant United States Attorney, Las Cruces, 

New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Befo1 TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and CARRIGAN, District 

Judge.** 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has d~termined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

** I The Honorable Jim R. Carrigan, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

I 

Appellate Case: 93-2182 Document: 01019286154 Date Filed: 04/01/1994 Page: 1 
Defendant Amador Rodriguez-Mejia appeals his conviction for 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 811(a) (1), (b) (1) (D), asserting that the district court erred in 

I 

giving an Allen1 charge to the jury. We have jurisdiction under 

I 28 j.s.c. § 1291 . 

. I Defendant was tried by jury on March 17, 1993. After jury 

instructions and closing statements, the jury retired to 

I 

deliberate at 11:38 a.m. The jury took a lunch break and after 

I deliberating a total of about two hours, the court reconvened at 

I 2:55 p.m. and proposed to counsel that the Allen charge be read to 

the jury. Over defense counsel's objection, the court proceeded 

to give the following Allen instruction to the jury: 

I 

1 

This is an important case. The trial has been 

expensive in time, effort and money to both the defense 

and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a 

verdict, the case is left open and must be tried again. 

Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase 

the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to 

believe that the case can be tried again by either side 

better or more exhaustively than it has been tried 

before you. 

It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one 

another and deliberate with a view toward reaching an 

agreement, if you can do so without violence to 

individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case 

for yourself, but do so only after an impartial 

consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. 

In the course of your deliberations do not hesitate to 

reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you 

are convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender 

your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of 

evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow 

jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. 

I will ask now that you retire once again and 

continue your deliberations with these additional 

comments in mind to be applied, of course, in 

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-2182 Document: 01019286154 Date Filed: 04/01/1994 Page: 2 
conjunction with all of the instructions I have 

previously given you. 

The jury renewed its deliberations at 3:01p.m., and continued 

deli berating until court was adjourned for the day at 4:58 p.m. 

The jury returned the next day at 9:00 a.m. to continue 

deliberating. At 10:10 a.m., the jury advised the court it had 

reaJ hed a verdict, and returned a verdict of guilty. 

We have traditionally urged caution in the use of the Allen 

instruction. United States v. Butler, 904 F.2d 1482, 1488 {lOth 

Cirj 1990). The preferred rule of procedure is to give an Allen 

insJruction at the same time as other instructions; however, this 

is J ot a per se rule. Id. {citing United States v. McKinney, 822 

I . . F.2d 946, 951 {lOth C1r. 1987)). We rev1ew whether an Allen 

insJruction was erroneously given on a case-by-case basis with a 

vieJ towards determining whether the instruction had a coercive 

effl ct on the jury. McKinney, 822 F.2d at 951. 

We conclude that neither the wording nor the timing of the 

district court's Allen instruction was coercive. In Butler, 904 

I F.2d at 1487-88, we upheld an Allen instruction that contained 

I . wor J 1ng very similar to the wording here. Moreover, the 

instruction here, unlike the one given in Butler, was directed to 

the entire jury and not just to those jurors in the minority. See 

Unitt ed States v. Meuli , 8 F.3d 1481, 1487 {lOth Cir. 1993) 

{bel ause instruction was not directed specifically at jurors 

I holding minority view, possibility of coercion was further 

redf ced), petition for cert. filed, No. 93-7410 (U.S. Jan. 10, 

1994); United States v. Porter, 881 F.2d 878, 889 {lOth Cir.) 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-2182 Document: 01019286154 Date Filed: 04/01/1994 Page: 3 
(same), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 944 (1989). Furthermore, the court 

h

emopnheas: tsized in this case that the jurors should not surrender their 

convictions. See Meuli, 8 F.3d at 1487 (statement that 

juroks should not give up honest convictions reduced 

coerl iveness) . 

We also find no error in the timing of the instruction. We 

have held on many occasions that, while not preferred, it is not 

error to give an Allen instruction after deliberations have begun 

I . . but f efore the JUry declares deadlock. See Un1ted States v. 

Smith, 857 F.2d 682, 684 (lOth Cir. 1988); United States v. Smith, 

I 521 F.2d 374, 377 (lOth Cir. 1975) ;· United States v. Seasholtz, 

I 435 F.2d 4, 7 (lOth Cir. 1970); Munroe v. United States, 424 F.2d 

243, 247 (lOth Cir. 1970) .

2 We have also held that it is not 

was 

the 

Appellate Case: 93-2182 Document: 01019286154 Date Filed: 04/01/1994 Page: 4 
eve~ing and returning the next morning to continue deliberations. 

See ~son v. Texaco, Inc., 948 F.2d 1546, 1557 (lOth Cir. 1991) 

(ledgth of. continued deliberations after court gives Allen 

instlruction is a factor in determining whether instruction was 

coe!.ilcive), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1941 (1992). Thus, we 

conclude the court did not err in giving an Allen instruction to 

the jury without evidence of jury deadlock and after only two 

hour's of deliberations. 

Defendant's conviction is AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 93-2182 Document: 01019286154 Date Filed: 04/01/1994 Page: 5