Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cr-00178/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cr-00178-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tuan Ngoc Luong
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUAN NGOC LUONG,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cr-00178-HSG-1 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SPECIFIC UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION 

AND VERDICT FORM

Re: Dkt. No. 134

Defendant moves for a specific unanimity instruction and verdict form, specifying the 

basis for the jury’s Hobbs Act jurisdictional finding. Dkt. No. 134. The Court DENIES

Defendant’s motion. 

“[A] jury in a federal criminal case cannot convict unless it unanimously finds that the 

Government has proved each element.” Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). 

Where a statute consists of several elements, a specific unanimity instruction could be necessary to 

ensure that the jury has agreed unanimously and separately as to each element. Id. at 818. The 

jury, however, “need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying 

brute facts make up a particular element.”1 Id. at 817. 

Here, the two possible bases for the Government’s jurisdictional theory prove the same 

Hobbs Act element: whether the robbery affected interstate commerce. Thus, under Richardson, 

there is no requirement that the jury agree to the specific means by which interstate commerce was 

affected. See United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n indictment may 

 

1

“Where, for example, an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might 

conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat; others might conclude he used a gun. 

But that disagreement—a disagreement about means—would not matter as long as all 12 jurors 

unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely, 

that the defendant had threatened force.” Id. 

Case 4:15-cr-00178-HSG Document 143 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allege that a defendant committed an offense by one or more specified means, but ‘[w]e have 

never suggested that in returning general verdicts in such cases the jurors should be required to 

agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify 

one alone.’” (quoting Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 632 (1991)); see also United States v. 

Renteria, 557 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that because the language of the count in 

issue, “used in interstate and foreign commerce, and in an activity affecting interstate or foreign 

commerce,” describes a single element, a specific unanimity instruction was not required); United 

States v. Steele, 543 F. App’x 703, 704 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding the district court did not err in 

refusing to give a unanimity instruction as to the factual basis underlying the interstate commerce 

element: “The jury was not required to agree unanimously on which incident of interstate travel 

Steele caused”). 

Because “a general instruction that the verdict must be unanimous” is ordinarily sufficient 

to protect a defendant’s rights, see United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314, 1319 (9th Cir. 

1989), Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/27/2016

Case 4:15-cr-00178-HSG Document 143 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2