2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-1-2010 

# U SA v . Roy B rew ley P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1089

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Ro y B r ew

ley " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1229. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1229NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 1089

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO Y B RE WLE Y,

A ppel l ant

______________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands N o. 3- 04- cr - 00154- 003 D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e Jam es T . G i l es

A r gued M ay3, 2010 B efore: S M ITH , C H A G A R E S , and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 1, 2010)

_______________ De l i a L . S mi t h , E s q . [ AR GUE D] O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney U nit ed S t at es C ou rtho use 5500 V et er ans B ui l di ng, Sui t e 260 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I , 00802- 6924 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee L e s l i e L . P a yt o n , E s q . [ AR GUE D] P. O . B ox 305272 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as2

U SV I , 00803- 0000 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant

OP I NI ON C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. R o yB re w ley ch a llen g e s h is c o n v ictio n f o r c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e coc ai ne. A ft erB r ew l ey ’ s fi r s ttr i al cul m i nat ed i n a mi s t r i al , the G overnm ent re tried h im a n d o b tain e d a c o n v ictio n . B re w ley no w a rg u e s, in ter a lia, th a t th e D o u b le J eopar dyC l aus e barr ed r epr os ecut i on beca us e ther e w as no “mani fes tnece s s i t y ” fort he
m i s t r i al . W e hol d, how ever , t hatt he r epr os ecut i on di d notvi ol at e the D oubl e J eopar dy C lau se . B re w ley i m p lied lyc o n se n ted to th e m istria l, an d w e th e re f o re h a v e n o o c c a sio n to exami ne the mani fes tneed f ori t . W e r ej ectB r ew l ey ’ s ot hercl ai m s and w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on. I. W e w r i t e fort he part i es ’ benef i tand s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o r es ol ve th e a p p e a l. B re w ley w a s e m p lo y e d a s a b a g g a g e h a n d ler a t th e C yril E . K in g A irp o rt in S t. T hom as . I n t hatcapa ci t y , he as s i s t ed i n a s m uggl i ng oper at i on des i gned t o i m por tcoca i ne i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es m ai nl and. B r ew l eyand el even of hi s cohor t s w er e cha r ged i n an el even- counts uper s edi ng i ndi ctm enton J anuary13, 2005. C ountO ne al l eged a cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and/ orpos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21C i t at i ons t o t he A ppendi x ar e r efe r ence d bythe corr es pondi ng vol um e and pa ge 1 n u m b er. 3 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) and 846. T he othert en count s char ged s ubs t ant i ve count s of pos s es s i on ( and ai di ng and abe t t i ng s uch pos s es s i on) w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) , ( b) ( 1) and 18 U . S. C . § 2. B r ew l eyw as named i n C ount s O ne and E i ghtof the s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent . H e and s even of the named defe ndant s pl eade d not g u iltya n d w e re jo in tlytried ; th e o th e r f o u r p lea d e d g u iltya n d tes tifie d a t trial. T r i al comm ence d on N ovember6, 2006, and the D i s t r i ctC our tther eaf t erdi s m i s s ed C o u n ts T w o , T h re e , F o u r, an d F iv e . O n D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the ju ryb e g a n its d e lib e ra tio n s o n th e re m a in in g c o u n ts w ith re sp e c t to th e su b sta n tiv e c rim e s a n d , if
n e c e ss a ry , w o u ld c o n sid e r d ru g a m o u n t se p a ra tely . O n D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 , the ju ryse n t a not e advi s i ng t hati thad “c om e t o a dec i s i on on al l ver di ct s , al l defe ndant s , al l count s . ” A p p en d ix (“A p p . ”) II. 4 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtq u esti o n ed the f o rep erso n w h ethe r th e jury 1 had “r eac h[ed] a unani m ous deci s i on w i t h r es pectt o al l count s and al l defe ndant s , ” and t he for eper s on ans w er ed thati thad. A pp. I I . 5. W hen as ked forthe j ury ’ s ver di ct , the for eper s on announce d “gui l t y ” on ea ch countagai ns teac h defe ndant . A pp. I I . 5- 6. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen conduc t ed a ge ner al pol l of the j ury , and appa r ent l ydi s cerned no d iss e n t. A p p . II.7 . It th e n re c o rd e d th e v e rd ict a n d in stru c ted th e ju ryto c o n tin u e th e ir d e lib e ra tio n s o n d ru g a m o u n t. M om ent s l at er , t he D i s t r i ctJ udge w as i nform ed thatJ ur orSi x had as ked t o s peak4

w ith h im . A n o f

f -th e -re c o rd d isc u ss io n th e n to o k p lac e . A p p . II.1 5 . S e v e ra l m o m e n ts l at er, i n o pen cou rt , t he D i stri ctC ou rti nd i vidual l ypo l l ed the j urym em bers. T he fir st f iv e ju ro rs a f

f irm e d th a t th e yh a d v o ted g u iltyw ith re sp e c t to a ll d e f e n d a n ts a n d a ll
r emai ni ng count s . A pp. I I . 15- 28. J ur orSi x, how ever , ans w er ed nega t i vel yw hen as ked
w hethert he ver di cthad bee n unani m ous . She admi t t ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tthats he had s i gned the ver di cts heetbut , w hen s he att empt ed t o expl ai n, the D i s t r i ctC our tcutheroff
a n d c o n tin u e d its p o ll o f th e o th e r ju ro rs. A p p .II.2 8 -2 9 . E a c h re a f f irm e d a g u iltyv o te foreac h defe ndantand ea ch count . A pp. I I . 29- 39. W i t houthavi ng l earned how the
v erd icth ad n o t bee n u n an im o u s, the D istri ct C o u rtinstructed the ju rysim p lyto “re turn t o t he j ur yr oom and r epor tback t o m e, w hethery ou have a unani m ous deci s i on, ory ou do not . ” A pp. I I . 39. A tt hatpoi nt , couns el forco- defe ndantSt efon W i l s on obj ect ed, as s ert i ng thatt he ver di cthad notbeen una ni m ous and w as ther efor e i n vi ol at i on of Feder al R ul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 31. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ebuff ed thes e ef

for t s , r emi ndi ng couns el t hat “the j ur yhas r epor t ed i n w r i t i ng a unani m ous deci s i on. ” A pp. I I . 39. A ft era s hor tbr eak, t he D i s t r i ctC our tputt he fol l ow i ng on t he r ecor d:

T hi s [i s ] t he s i tuat i on. T her e w as a r epo rt of unani m ous d e c isio n b yth e f

o re p e rso n , g u il ty as to a ll co u n ts a s to a ll defe ndant s char ged. T her e w as a gene r al pol l of t he j ury , and m yo b se rv a tio n w a s th a t n o o n e o n th e ju ry sa id n o , a n d th a t all s ai d y es . I m ol ded the ver di ct b ase d u p on t he r epor tof the j urors , gu i l t yas t o all defe nd ants as t o all cou nts . S u b se q u e n tly , af

ter th e c h a rg e to th e ju ryw ith re sp e c t to amount , one of t he j ur or s m ade i t know n t hatt he dec i s i on w as5 notheri ndi vi dual deci s i on. I ’ ve conc l uded thatas a m at t erof la w , th e v e rd ic t w a s ta k e n , it w a s m o ld e d , a n d it w a s e n te re d [ ,] and i tst and s. A pp. I I . 41. D ur i ng a cont i nui ng debat e w i t h couns el overthe pr opr i etyof the ver di ct , t he D i s t r i ctC our tabrupt l ydeci ded t o ques t i on J ur orSi x as t o w hats he w oul d have ans w er ed had i tpol l ed heron heri ndi vi dual vot es . A s the j uryw as bei ng s um m oned, couns el fort w o of B r ew l ey ’ s co- defe ndant s s t at ed thattheyj oi ned i n everyt hi ng that W il so n ’s att o rne yh ad said , w h ich in clud ed a m o ti o n fo r a m istri al. T h e D istri ct C o u rt r es ponded, “I as s um e al l defe ndant s j oi n i n. ” A pp. I I . 44. T he tr ans cr i ptdoes notr evea l
a r es pons e fr om B r ew l ey ’ s couns el . I d. T h e D istric t C o u rt p o lled Ju ro r S ix , w h o a f f irm e d th a t sh e h a d v o ted g u iltyw ith
r es pectt o eac h defe ndantand ea ch counts ave Bre w l ey , w hom s he bel i eved w as not gui l t y . A pp. I I . 45- 48. N onethel es s , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j ury– over B r ew l ey ’ s obj ect i on – t o cont i nue i t s del i ber at i ons on drug amount as i f i thad r eac hed a unani m ous ver di ctas t o al l defe ndant s , B r ew l eyi ncl uded. A pp. I I . 48. T he nextdayt he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j uryt o ans w era s er i es of i nt err ogat or i es r egar di ng drug amount . C ons i s t entw i t h t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i on the day b e f o re , the q u e stio n s a ss u m e d th a t th e ju ryh a d re a c h e d a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict a s to a ll defe ndant s , i ncl udi ng B r ew l ey . T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned thati tr ecogni zed one j ur or had r epr es ent ed B r ew l eyw as notgui l t y , and thatdependi ng on t he j ur or s ’ ans w er s t o the in te rr o g a to ri e s , it w o u ld p o s e s e p a ra te q u e s tio n s a d d re s s in g th a t is s u e . A p p .II I.1 3 -1 4 .6

T hes e i nt err ogat or i es t hus appea rt o have be en des i gned ( atl eas ti n par t ) as a pr oxyfor g a u g in g w h e th e r th e ju rytru lyh a d re a c h e d a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict a s to B re w ley’s g u ilt . T he j ur or s s oon r etur ned w i t h ans w er s t o t he i nt err ogat or i es . T he for eper s on in d ica ted th a t th e ju ryh a d n o t b e e n a b le u n a n im o u slyto a n sw e r th e q u e stio n s a s to C o u n ts O n e a n d E ig h t, b u t h a d b e e n a b le to d o s o w ith re s p e c t to th e re m a in in g c o u n ts . A pp. I I I . 19- 20. W i t h r es pectt o t hos e r emai ni ng count s , the j uryunani m ous l yagr eed t hatt he G overnm enthad pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthe amount s char ged i n t he su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n in stru c ted th e ju ryto c o n tin u e to d e lib e ra te o n th e in ter ro g a to rie s w ith re sp e c t to C o u n ts O n e a n d E ig h t, th is tim e w ith B re w le y ’s n a m e re m o v e d . A p p . II I.2 2 . M in u te s la te r, t h e ju ry re tu rn e d w ith re s p o n s e s . T he for eper s on i ndi cat ed thatt he j uryunani m ous l yagr eed thatthe G overnm enthad pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthe drug amount char ged i n C ount s O ne and Ei ght
w hen B r ew l ey ’ s name w as notcons i der ed. A pp. I I I . 24. T he D i s t r i ctC ourtthen i ndi vi dual l ypol l ed the j ur or s . A pp. I I I . 25- 35. E ach j ur or– i ncl udi ng J ur orSi x – a f f irm e d th a t, ha v in g e x c lu d e d B re w ley fro m c o n sid e ra tio n , the d e f e n d a n ts c h a rg e d in C ount s O ne and Ei ghthad cons pi r ed t o ( and di d) pos s es s fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of coca i ne. I d. T he neteff ectw as t hatJ ur orSi x r eaf fi r m ed herbel i ef thatB r ew l eyw as not g u iltyb u t th a t th e o th e r d e f e n d a n ts w e re g u iltyo f

th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n se s. T h u s, w ith re sp e c t to B re w ley’s g u ilto r in n o c e n c e , an 1 1 -1 sp litw a s a p p a re n t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt th e n d is m is s e d th e ju ry f o r a m o m e n t to c o n s u lt w ith c o u n s e l.7

T he fol l ow i ng di s cus s i on ens ued:

T h e C o u rt: I’v e re c o n sid e re d m yp o sitio n a s to M r. R o yB re w ley, a n d h e is decl ar ed notgui l t y by vi r tue of the r e s p o n s e s o f

th e j u r y. [D efe ns e] : T hank y ou, Y our H onor . Y our H o n o r, w e a sk to lea v e a t th is p o in t. Th e Cou r t : T he r eas on for this i s t hat t he ju ro rs w e re n o t u n a n im o u s w ith r e s p e c tt o RoyBr e wl e y. . . a nd accordingl yt he ch arges against M r . B r ew l eyar e di s m i s s ed. A pp. I I I . 36- 37. T he courtexcus ed B r ew l eyfr om the court r oom and he a nd hi s l aw y er l efti m m edi at el y . T heydi d notgetfar . T he G overnm entat t orneyobj ect ed t o an outr i ght
a c q u itt a l, an d th e c o u rt c a lled th e m b a c k . W e q u o te in f u ll th e su b se q u e n t d isc u ss io n : [G overnm ent ] : Y ourH onor , can the governm ent be he ard on t he C our t ’ s rul i ng as t o notguil t yr egar di ng M r . R oy B r e w l e y? Th e Co u r t : O h , I ’ m s o r r y . . . . Yes , y ou m ay be hea r d. B utfi rst , M r . B r ew l ey h a s to re tu rn to th e C o u rt. [G o v ern m en t] : Y es, Y o u r H o n o r. ( Paus e) [D efe ns e] : J udge, y ou cal l ed me? Th e Cou r t : Y es , I di d. I c a n ’ te xcus e y our cl i e n t and y ou y et . T he8 g ov e rn m e n t is e n tit led to ar g u me n t , a n d I d i d n o tg i v e the g o v e r n m e n ta n o p p o r tu n i t y. [G overnm ent ] : Y ourH onor , at b es t , t he in f o rm a tio n re c e iv e d f

r o m th is p an el o f j u r[o rs] is that there w ere 11 for gui l t y and . . . one j ur orfor not gui l t y . T hi s w oul d cons t i tut e a m istria l a s to th o se tw o c o u n ts r ega r di ng M r . R oyB r ew l ey , and n o t a n o t-g u iltyv e rd ict. T h e C o u rt: O h , I’m so rry . W e ll, y o u ’re rig h t. [ G o v e rn m e n t]: A n d – o k a y . S o w e w o u ld lik e to h av e the o p p o rtu n ity , Y o u r H o n o r, t o h a v e t h e i s s u e s , th o s e t wo co u n t s a g a i n s tM r . Br e wl e yt r i ed befor e . . . a j uryth atcan [ r eac h a u n an im o u s v erd ict ]. T h e C o u rt : O k a y , o k a y . . . . U n d er la w , I can’tdism i ss the ch arges agai nst y ou r c l i e n t . I c a n d e c l a r e a m i s tr i al as to y ourcl i ent . A nd I d e c lar e a m istria l as to y o u r c lien t. [D efe ns e] : W e l i ked y our ear l i er deci s i on, Y o u r H o n o r. T he C our t : Par don? [D efe ns e] : W e l i ked y ourear l i erdeci s i on. Th e Cou r t : I ’ m s or r y , s i r , b u t I’m not t he S u p re m e C o u rt. B u t m is tr ia l is decl ar ed as t o y ourcl i ent , and y our c lien t is su b

jec t to trial.T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 a n d 4 8 U .S .C . § 2 1612( a) . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 9 [D efe ns e] : Y es , Y o u r H onor . C an w e be excus ed? T h e C o u r t : Y e s , s i r , yo u m a y. [D efe ns e] : T hank y ou. A pp. I I I . 37. 39. T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen w enton t o addr es s ot herm at t er s w i t h t he
r emai ni ng defe ndant s forappr oxi m at el yfor t y - fi ve mi nut es . A pp. I I I . 39- 71. B r ew l eyw as r etr i ed i n N ovember2007 and w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acy , but acqui t t ed of pos s es s i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m t o 120 m ont hs i n pr i s on, and t hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 2 I I . Th e Do u b l e J e o p a r d yCl a u s e “ f o rb i d s th a t‘ a n yp e r s o n b e s u b j e c tf o rth e s a me offe nce t o be tw i ce puti n j eopar dyof l i fe orl i m b. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 384 F. 3d 49, 53 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng U . S. C ons t . amend. V ) . R el evanther e, i tpr ot ect s “a defe ndant ’ s val ued r i ghtt o have hi s tr i al compl et ed bya part i cul artr i bunal . ” W ade v. H unt er , 336 U . S. 684, 689 ( 1949) . B utthatr i ght“musti n s om e i ns t ance s be s u b o rd in a te d to th e p u b lic ’s in te re s t in f a irtr ia ls d e s ig n e d to e n d in ju s t ju d g m e n ts .” Id . O ne s uch i ns t ance i s w hen “mani fes tnece s s i t y ” r equi r es thata mi s t r i al be dec l ar ed befo re the v erdi cti s gi ven . “[T ]he cl assi c basi s for a proper m i stri al , ” i n turn, i s a deadl ocked j ur y . A r i zona v. W as hi ngt on, 434 U . S. 497, 509 ( 1978) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed10

S tate s v . P e re z , 2 2 U .S . (9 W h e a t.) 5 7 9 , 5 8 0 (1 8 2 4 ). A trial c o u rt h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n to fi nd t hatt he j ur yi s hopel es s l ydeadl ocked, and s o l ong as i tpr oper l yexer ci s es that dis cret i on , i t s conseq uen tdeterm i nati on of m anifestnecessi t ygen eral l yw i l l no tri sk b a rrin g re p ro se c u tio n . S e e U n ited S tate s v . W e c h t, 54 1 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 5 0 4 -1 0 (3 d C ir.), c e rt. d e n i e d , 1 2 9 S . C t . 6 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) . I f t h e tr i a l c o u r tf

a i l s t o e x e r c i s e th a td i s c r e t i o n p r o p e r l y, o u r a p p e lla te s c ru tin ytig h te n s . S e e id . T he mani fes tnece s s i t ydoctr i ne onl ygoverns , how ever , i f the mi s t r i al i s decl ar ed o v e r th e d e f

e n d a n t’s o b

jec tio n o r w ith o u t h is c o n se n t. W h e re th e d e f e n d a n t co n se n ts to orr eques t s t he mi s t r i al , m ani fes tnece s s i t yi s notr equi r ed t o enabl e r epr os ecut i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. D i ni t z, 424 U . S. 600, 607 ( 1976) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T at eo, 377 U . S. 463, 467 ( 1964) ; L ove v. M or t on, 112 F. 3d 131, 133, 138 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . Such ci r cumst ance s evi nce “ a del i ber at e el ect i on on [the def endant ’ s ] partt o for go hi s val ued r i ghtt o have h is g u ilto r in n o c e n c e d e ter m in e d b e f o re th e f irst trie r o f

f a c t.” U n ited S tate s v . S c o tt, 437 U . S. 82, 93 ( 1978) . C ons entneed notbe expr es s , butm aybe i m pl i ed. L ove, 112 F. 3d at138- 39. B re w ley arg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it p re c ip itate ly decl ar ed the mi s t r i al . T he G overnm ent , fori t s part , does notat t empt t o defe nd the
m istria l o n g ro u n d s o f

m a n if e st n e c e ss ity . In ste a d , ita rg u e s th a t B re w ley i m p lied ly co n sen ted to the m istri al an d that a p rop er f ind ing o f m an ifest ne ce ssityw as th ere fo reO urr evi ew of i m pl i ed cons enti s pl enary . See U ni t ed St at es v. L ar a- R ami r ez, 3 5 1 9 F .3 d 7 6 , 8 3 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). 11 unnece s s ary . W e agr ee. A ccor di ngl y , w e addr es s nei t herm ani fes tnece s s i t ynorthe 3 D istric t C o u rt’s p ro c e d u re s in d e c lar in g th e m istria l. I n L ove, w e hel d t hata def endant ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o a court ’ s m i s t r i al decl ar at i on m aycons t i tut e i m pl i ed cons entt o t he mi s t r i al , butthat“w e w i l l noti nfer cons entfr om defe ns e couns el ’ s s i l ence unl es s ther e w as s om e opportuni t yt o obj ect . ” 112 F. 3d at138. W e made cl eart hats uch an opportuni t ym us tbe “meani ngful . ” I d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. L ar a- R ami r ez, 519 F. 3d 76, 83 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ( “C ons entm ay s om et i m es ‘ be i m pl i ed fr om a def endant ’ s act s orfai l ur es t o act , s uch as w her e the defe ndants i t s s i l ent l ybyand does notobj ectt o the dec l ar at i on of a mi s t r i al even though he has a fa i roppor tuni t yt o do s o. ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. T or i bi o- L ugo, 376 F. 3d 33, 40 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ) ) . M or eover , beca us e “c l os e ca s es r egar di ng the pr opr i etyof a
m i s t r i al ‘ s houl d be r es ol ved i n favorof the l i ber t yof a c i t i zen, ’ ” Love, 112 F. 3d at138 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es ex. r el . R us s o v. Super i orC our tof N . J . , L aw D i v. , 483 F. 2d 7, 17 ( 3d C i r . 1973) ) , w e expl ai ned that“w e mustpr ocee d w i t h caut i on i n i nferr i ng cons ent f ro m c o u n s e l’ s f

a ilu re to o b

je c t.” Id . W e conc l uded forfourr eas ons thatthe def endanti n L ove di d nothave a
m e a n in g f

u l o p p o rtu n ityto o b

jec t, an d th a t h is f

a ilu re to d o so th e re f

o re d id n o t co n stitu te i m pl i ed cons ent : ( 1) “the j udge made no i nqui r yof couns el r egar di ng the pr opr i etyof aW e re jec t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t B re w ley af f irm a tiv e lyjo in e d in 4 W ilso n ’s m istria l m o tio n w h e n th e D istric t C o u rt sta ted th a t it“ a ss u m e [ d ] a ll d e f e n d a n ts jo in [ e d .]” A p p . II.4 4 . T h e tra n sc rip t d o e s n o t re v e a l a r e sp o n se f ro m B re w ley or h is c o u n s e l to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s “ a s s u m p tio n ,” a n d w e w ill n o t in f e r o n e . 12 m i s t r i al ”; ( 2) “the j udge r etur ned t o t he court r oom t o decl ar e a mi s t r i al onl yfi ve ort en m i nut es aft eri nform i ng couns el of hi s i nt entt o do s o”; ( 3) “w hen the j udge dec l ar ed the
m i s t r i al and di s m i s s ed the j ur y , he i m m edi at el yr eturned t o hi s chamber s and qui ckl yl eft t he court hous e, ” pr ecl udi ng “a r eas onabl e opportuni t yt o r ai s e an obj ect i on”; and ( 4) t he

“ e m o tio n a llyc h a rg e d ” a tm o sp h e re in th o se c irc u m sta n c e s m a d e o b jec tin g a d if

f icu lt pr opos i t i on. I d. Sever al cons i der at i ons l ead us t o di s t i ngui s h t hi s cas e fr om L ove and c oncl ude that B rew leyh ad a m ea n ing fu l op p o rtu n ityto o b ject. F ir st, w h en the D istri ct C o u rt 4 d e c lar e d a m istria l an d in f o rm e d B re w ley’s a tto rn e yth a t h is c lien t w o u ld b e su b jec t to r etr i al , r athert han obj ect i ng, couns el expl i ci t l yacqui es ced, s t at i ng, “Y es , Y ourH onor . ” A pp. I I I . 39. See C amden v. C i r cui tC our tof Second J udi ci al C i r cui t , 892 F. 2d 610, 615 ( 7t h C i r . 1989) ( “W hi l e the tr i al cour t ’ s cont empl at i on of a ne w tr i al i s notconcl us i ve on t he i s s ue of doubl e j eopar dy , t he court ’ s comm ent s abouta mi s t r i al and r efe r ence t o a s econd tr i al s houl d have pr om pt ed def ens e couns el t o obj ecti f he di d notagr ee w i t h t he need f ora mi s t r i al ort he pr opr i etyof a r etr i al . ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . M or eover , couns el
w a s p lain lya w a re o f

th e im p lica tio n s a m istria l w o u ld h a v e a s o p p o se d to a n a c q u itt a l; t hi s i s evi dence d byhi s s t at ementt o t he courtthathe “l i ked” the i ni t i al acqui t t al rul i ngW e r ej ectanynot i on t hatt hi s s t at ementcons t i tut ed an obj ect i on. See U ni t ed 5 St at es v. Pal m er , 122 F. 3d 215, 219 ( 5th C i r . 1997) ( “O urpr ece dent s r equi r e thatcr i m i nal defe nd ants m ake ti m el y , exp l i ci tobj ect i on s t o a sua sp on t e declar at i on of a m i stri al , l est t heybe hel d t o have i m pl i edl ycons ent ed t o i t . ”) . C ouns el ’ s j ocul arcomm entcl ear l yw as o n e o f a c q u ies c e n c e ra th e r th a n p ro tes t. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ni t i al pr onouncementfr om the benc h t hatB r ew l eyw as not 6 gui l t ydi d nott r i ggert he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e’ s pr ot ect i on. “A n or al gr antof a m ot i on foracqui t t al i s no m or e than an i nt er l ocut oryor der , w hi ch the courthas i nher ent pow ert o r econs i derand modi fy. . . pr i ort o t he entr yof j udgm ent . ” U ni t ed St at es v. W as hi ngt on, 48 F. 3d 73, 79 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he D istric t C o u rt h e re d id n o t en ter a ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l, bu t in ste a d im m e d iate ly c o rre c ted itse lf

w h e n th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ted o u t th e o v e rsig h t. 13 “ b e tte r.” 5 Second, t he r ecor d demonstr at es thatB r ew l eyand hi s at t orneyw er e al l t oo anxi ous t o vaca t e the court r oom t he mom entthe fi r s toppor tuni t yar os e. I tt ook but s econds fort hem t o r eques tt o l eave w hen the D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l ypr onounced B r ew l eynotgui l t y . T he tr ans cr i ptr evea l s an equa l , i f notgr eat er , eage r nes s t o l eave 6
w hen the courti nform ed them t hata mi s t r i al w oul d be dec l ar ed i ns t ead; i ndeed, couns el in sta n tan e o u slyq u e rie d : “C a n w e b e e x c u se d ? ” T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F if

th C i r cui thas addr es s ed a s i m i l ars cena r i o:

[T]he t r i al cour t decl ar ed a m i s t r i al as t o Pal m eron A ugus t21, 1995. A t t hat t i m e, Pal m er ’ s couns el m ade no obj ect i ons t o t he decl ar at i on of m i s t r i al . R ather , hercouns el ’ s onl ys t at ement befor e the courtw as a r eques tt o be exc used fro m t he p roc ee d ing s. A fter the tr ial co u rt g ran ted that req u est, P alm er’s couns el l eft t he cour t r oom . N ot unt i l N ovember30, 1995, l ong aft erthe fi r s tt r i al had conc l uded and j us tbefor e hers econd t r i al , di d Pal m er obj ect t o t he m i s t r i al t hathad bee n decl ar ed on A ugus t21. T hi s fail s to qua l i fyas t he “t i m el yobj ect i on” re q u ire d b yo u r C irc u it.14

U n it ed S tat es v . P alm er, 12 2 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 -19 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T hi r d, w her eas i n L ove the tr i al j udge i m m edi at el yl eftthe benc h ( pr ecl udi ng an o p p o rtu n ityf

o r re f lec tio n a n d o b

jec tio n ), th e D istric t Ju d g e in th is c a se c o n tin u e d to addr es s ot herm at t er s w i t h t he r emai ni ng defe ndant s forfor t y - fi ve more m i nut es . H ad he
w ant ed t o, B r ew l ey ’ s couns el coul d eas i l yhave s t ay ed i n cour tt o l odge an obj ect i on, or even r etur ned t o do s o aft er“thought ful and r efl ect i ve dec i s i on- m aki ng. ” Love, 112 F . 2 d a t1 3 8 - 3 9 . C o u n s e l d i d n o ta v a i l h i m s e l f o f th a tv e r y r e a l o p p o r tu n i t y. Four t h, unl i ke Love, t he ci r cumst ance s her e di d notm ake obj ect i on aw kw ar d or di ffi cul t . T he mi s t r i al rul i ng occurr ed out s i de the j ury ’ s pr es ence , and no unus ual circu m stan ce s ex ist ed to p rev en t cou n sel fro m o b jecti n g . T o the c o n tr ary , the re co rd re f u tes a n yc laim th a t th e d e f e n se a tto rn e y s w e re re lu c tan t at th a t ti m e (o r a n yo th e r) to obj ectt o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rul i ng s. F ifth , g iven the o b v iou s d ir ec ti o n that the p roc ee d ing s h ad take n – w ith an 1 1 -1 ju rysp lita p p a re n t, an d se v e ra l o th e r d e f e n d a n ts h a v in g a lre a d ym o v e d f o r a m istria l – it is n o t u n re a so n a b le to re q u ire c o u n se l to h a v e a n ticip a ted a m istria l d e c lar a tio n a n d to have be en pr epar ed t o gi ve a r es pons e. See U ni t ed St at es v. N i chol s , 977 F. 2d 972, 974- 75 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) ( percur i am) ( s t at i ng thatthe r ecor d bel i ed def endant ’ s cl ai m t hat a mi s t r i al rul i ng came as a “t ot al s urpr i s e, ” and f i ndi ng the fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o be i m pl i ed cons ent ) ; C amden, 892 F. 2d at618 ( fi ndi ng i m pl i ed cons entw her e def endantdi d not obj ectt o m i s t r i al beca us e “[ d] efe ns e couns el s houl d have a nt i ci pat ed the pos s i bi l i t yof aI n hi s s t at ementof i s s ues pr es ent ed, B r ew l eyal s o l i s t s a fourt h cl ai m thatthe 7 pr os ecut or ’ s i m pr opers t at ement s dur i ng s um m at i on w arr anta new tr i al . B r ew l eyB r . at 7. B es i des m ent i oni ng i ti n pas s i ng i n hi s Sum m aryof the A r gum ent , s ee i d. at12, he 15 m i s t r i al and bee n pr epar ed t o obj ectors ugges tm or e ac cept abl e al t ernat i ves w hen the tr ial jud g e a n n o u n ce d h is ru li n g ”). Fi nal l y , w e ca nnoti gnor e the ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch the mi s t r i al rul i ng w as m ade, and the s t r at egi c opt i ons avai l abl e t o B r ew l eyatthatt i m e. H avi ng l earned that e lev e n o u t o f

tw e lv e ju ro rs b e liev e d h is c lien t g u ilty , itis u n su rp risin g th a t co u n se l d id
n o t in sis t th a t d e lib e ra tio n s c o n tin u e . W h ile B re w ley of c o u rse h a d th e p re ro g a tiv e to i ns i s ton “hi s val ued r i ghtt o have hi s gui l tori nnocenc e det erm i ned bef or e the fi r s ttr i er of fa ct , ” Scot t , 437 U . S. at93, t he fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o t he mi s tr i al s ugges t s thatcouns el t ook i nt o acc ountt he pos s i bl ydi r e cons equenc es thati nvocat i on of thatr i ghtm i ghthave i nduced. W e recogn i ze t hat the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not consultw i t h (or even alert ) defense cou nsel befo re abrup t l ydeclar i ng t he m i stri al . C f. L ov e, 11 2 F . 2d at13 8. N evertheles s, w e c o n c lu d e u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s th a t B re w ley ha d a m e a n in g f u l o p p o rtu n ityto r egi s t erhi s obj ect i on t o t he mi s t r i al aft erthe courtdecl ar ed i t , and thathi s fai l ur e t o do s o r es ul t ed i n hi s i m pl i ed cons entt o i t . A ccor di ngl y , the D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e di d not barr epr os ecut i on. III . B r ew l eyas s er t s t hr ee othercl ai m s : ( 1) thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yfai l ed 7does notar gue the poi nti n hi s br i ef, and i ti s ther efor e w ai ved. See U ni t ed St at es v.

Pel ul l o, 399 F. 3d 197, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[F] ai l ur e t o . . . ar gue an i s s ue i n [the] o p en ing b ri ef

co n sti tutes w aive r of

that issue o n ap p ea l. ”) (cit ati o n o m itted). 16 t o pol l t he j ur yaft ert he ver di ct ; ( 2) t hatthe s econd tr i al vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe SpeedyT r i al A ct ; and ( 3) t hata def ecti n t he ver di cts heetw arr ant s r ever s al . A thor ough
r e v i e w o f

t h e r e c o r d c o n v i n c e s u s t h a tth e s e c l a i ms a r e e n t i r e l ywi t h o u tme r i t , a n d we r ej ectt hem w i t houtfur t herdi s cus s i on. I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on.