2006 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
1-12-2006 

# U SA v . H edgep eth
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4564

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . H e d g epe th" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1680. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1680P 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. 04- 4564


### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. DA RIN L
. HE DG EP ET H,

Appe l l ant
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 03- cr - 00294) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember26, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , A M B R O , and LO U R I E , * C i r cui tJ udges * H onor abl e A l an D
. L our i e, C i r cui tJ udge fort he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forth e F ed era l C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed J anuary12, 2006) D an iel M M y sh in, E sq u ir e 4800 L i ngl es t ow n R oad, Sui t e 305 H arr i s bur g, PA 17112 C ouns el forA ppel l ant T hom as A
. M ar i no U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Jam es T
. C lanc y , E sq u ir e A s s i s t antU
. S. A t t or ney O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 228 W al nutSt r eet , P. O
. B ox 11754 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge D ar i n L
. H edgepe t h appea l s fr om h is convi ct i on and s ent ence forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fel on, 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) and 18 U
. S. C
. § 9 24( a) ( 2) , pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne, 21 U
. S. C
. § 844, and pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne3 w h ile o n p re -t ri a l r e le a s e , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 4 7 a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 844. H e al l eges t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by ( a) deny i ng hi s pr etr i al m ot i on t o s t r i ke port i ons of a su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t th a t in c lu d e d f a c to rs r e lev a n t to s e n te n c in g a n d (b ) s u b m ittin g , o v e r H e d g e p e th ’s o b je c tio n , a s peci al ver di cts l i p t o the jur yt hati ncl uded the cont es t ed s e n t e n c i n g f

a c t o r s . F o r t h e r e a s o n s p r o v i d e d b e l o w, we a f f i r m. I . F act ual and P roce dural H i s t ory H edgepeth w as i ndi ct ed i n O ct ober2003 on char ges of m a n u f a c tu ri n g c o u n te rf

e it c u rr e n c yin v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 471 and pos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1)
. T he G overnm ent s u b s e q u e n t l y f

i l e d t h r e e s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c t m e n t s , t h e f i r s t t wo of w hi ch adde d char ges forpos s es s i on of a s aw ed-of f s hot gun i n vi ol at i on of 26 U
. S. C
. §§ 5841, 5861( d) and 5871, pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 844, and pos s es s i on of cr ack coca i ne w hi l e on pr e- t r i al r el eas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 844 and 18 U
. S. C
. § 3147. T he thi r d s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entadded a N ot i ce of Speci al Fi ndi ngs co n t ai ni ng fact ors t hat w ou l d affect sent encing i f they w ere fou nd t o ex i st bya j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , i ncl udi ng : ( a) w hether H edgepe t h pos s es s ed a s hot gun w i t h a barr el l ength of l es s t han eigh teen inch es; (b) w h ethe r th e of fe n se in v o lved three o r m o re fi r earm s ; and ( c) w hether one orm or e of the fi r earm s i nvol ved i n t he off ens e w as s t ol en. H edgepe t h fi l ed a m ot i on t o s t r i ke the s ent enci ng fac t or s as s urpl us age an d t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed4 th e m o ti o n . A t th e A u g u st 20 0 4 tr ial , a S p ec ial V erd ictF o rm w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur y , overH edgepe t h’ s objecti on, t hat inclu d ed the th ree sen tenc ing fa ctors a d d e d b ythe th ir d s u p e rs e d in g in d ic tm e n t. C e n tra l to th is c a se is th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s d e c isio n s to fi l e the thi r d s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m entand s ubm i tt he s peci al v e rd ict f o rm w e re p ro m p ted b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in B la ke ly v . W

a s h in g to n , 542 U
. S. 296, 304 ( 2004) ( hol di ng t hat anyfac t , ot hert han a pr i orconvi ct i on, t hat i ncr eas ed a s ent ence bey ond t he m axi m um a j udge coul d i m pos e bas ed on admi t t ed c o n d u c t m u st b e p led a n d p ro v e n to a ju ry b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t)
. S ev en m o n ths a fter B la ke ly , t he Supr eme C our ts t ruck the F ed er al S en tenc ing G u idelines inso fa r as the yw ere m a n d a to ry. U

ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 1 2 5 S
. C t. 7 3 8 , 7 6 6 (20 0 5 ). T hus , “mandat or yenhanc ementof a se nt ence undert he G u id e lin e s, b a se d o n f a c ts f o u n d b yth e c o u rt a lo n e ,” is c o n s titu tio n a lly im p e rm is s ib le
. U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. I n H edgepe t h’ s cas e the G overnm ent c h o se to re sp o n d to th e p o st- B l akel y, pr e- B oo ker cont extby p l e a d i n g a n d p r o v i n g t h e s e n t e n c e e n h a n c e m e n t s t o t h e j u r y. T h e j u r y f

o u n d Hed g e p e t h g u i l t y o f p o s s e s s i on of a fi r earm bya pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed f elon , pos s es s i on of cr ack coca i ne, and pos s es s i on of cr ack coc aine w hi l e on pr e- t r i al r el eas e. ( H e w as found notgui l t y of poss es s i on of a s aw ed- off s hot gun and a mi s t r ial w as gr ant ed as t o t he count er fei t i ng char ge becaus e t he j ur ycoul d notr eac h a ver di ct
. ) W i t h r es pectT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 18 U
. S. C
. § 3231. W e ha v e appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2
. 5 t o t he fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm offe nse, the j ur yfound t w o of the thr ee s ent enci ng fac t or s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ( t hatt he off

ens e i nvol ved thr ee orm ore firearm s and thatat l easton e of the fi rearm s w a s st olen)
. H edg epeth app eal s, al l egi ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tunfai r l ypr ej udi ced hi m and c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le e rro r b y d e n y in g h is p re trial m o tio n to s t r i ke por t i ons of the thi r d s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entand s ubm i t t i ng, overhi s obj ect i on, t he s peci al ver di cts l i p t o t he j u r y. 1 I I . D i s cus s i on A . St andard of R evi ew W e re v iew fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n the D is tr ict C o u rt ’s deci s i on t o deny a m ot i on t o s t r i ke s urpl us age f r om an in d ic tm e n t. See, e. g. , U ni t ed States v. R ez aq , 134 F. 3d 1121, 1 1 3 4 ( D. C. Ci r . 19 98 ) ; 1 Ch a r l e s Al a n W r i g h t& A r t h u rR. M ille r, Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 127, at277–78 ( 3d ed. 1999)
. M ot i ons t o s t r i ke s urpl us age a r e r ar el ygr ant ed. U n itedS ta tes v . A lsu g a ir , 25 6 F. Sup p. 2d 30 6, 31 7 ( D
. N
. J. 2 0 0 3 ); se e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . P h a ris , 298 F. 3d 228, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( C ow en, J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( “[T] he s cope of a di s t r i ct c o u rt’s d is c re tio n to strik e m a ter ial f ro m a n in d ictm e n t is6 n a rr o w .” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ))
. T he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o s ubm i t a spec i al ver di ct f o rm to th e ju ry is a ls o re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed S ta tes v . C o n so le , 1 3 F .3 d 6 4 1 , 6 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); W aldor f v. Sh u ta , 8 9 6 F
. 2 d 7 2 3 , 7 4 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). B. N ot i c e of

Spe c i al Fi ndi ngs i n t he I ndi c t m e nt A n indi ct m ent m ustcon t ai n “the el em ents of the off ense char ged” a nd en abl e the def endant“t o pl ead a n acqui t t al or c o n v ic tio n in b a r o f f

u tu re p ro s e c u tio n s f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e .” H am l i ng v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 418 U
. S. 87, 117 ( 1974) ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ); U

n itedS ta tes v . O la tu n

ji , 8 7 2 F
. 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 8 (3d C ir
. 19 89 ). “A s l on g a s th e cri m e and t he elem ents of the off ense that su sta i n t he convi ct i on ar e ful l yand cl ear l ys etouti n t he i ndi ctm ent , t he r i ghtt o a gra nd j ur y i s notnor m al l yvi ol at ed by t he fa ctt hatt he i ndi ctm ent al l eges m or e cr i m es orot herm eans of comm i t t i ng t he s ame cr i m e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. M il le r , 471 U
. S. 130, 136 ( 1985)
. H ow ever , upon t he def endant ’ s m ot i on, t he courtm ays t r i k e s urpl us age f r om t he i ndi ct m entor in f o rm a tio n . F ed. R
. C ri m . P
. 7(d). “T his rul e i ntr od uces a m eans of pr ot ect i ng t he def endantagainst i m m at er i al or i r r el evantal l egat i ons i n an i ndi ct m entori nfor m at i on, w hi ch m ay , how ever , be pr ej udi ci al
. ” F ed
. R
. C ri m . P
. 7 (d) A d v isory C om m i t t ee’ s N ot e. H edgepe t h as s er t s t hat our Courthas notdet erm i ned7 w hetherthe testfors t r i ki ng s urpl us age i s “i r r el evantor p rejudici al ” or “i rr el evan tand prej ud i ci al
. ” Indeed , t he o n ly T h ird C irc u it ref

e re n c e to th is tes t is Ju d g e C o w e n ’s d iss e n t in U n itedS ta tes v . P h a ris , s ugges t i ng t hats urpl us m at er i al “‘ m ay onl ybe s t r i cken i f i t i s i r r el evantand pr ej udi ci al
. ’ ” 298 F. 3d at 248 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. O akar , 1 1 1 F
. 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 7 ( D. C. C i r . 1997) )
. D i s t r i ctcour t s i n ourC i r cui thave notappl i ed a c o n s is te n t te s t. C o mp a r e U n ited S ta tes v . A li , 2 0 0 5 WL 1993519, at*1 ( E
. D
. Pa. A ug. 16, 20 0 5 ) (mot i on t o s t r i ke s urpl us age s houl d onl ybe gr ant ed w her e i ti s cl eart hat in f o r m a tio n in in d ictm e n t “n o t re lev a n t, an d th e su rp lu sa g e is p re ju d ic ia l o r i n f

l a m m a to ry in n a tu re ” ), w i th U ni t ed Stat es v. Y eam an , 9 8 7 F . S u p p . 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (E .D . P a . 1 9 9 7 ) ( m o ti o n to str ike sh o u ld be g ran ted if a ll eg ati o n s irrelev an t or p rejud ici al), a n d U n ited S ta tes v . G a tto , 746 F. Supp. 432, 455 ( D
. N
. J
. 1990) (s a m e ). W e hol d t hat , u pon t he def endant ’ s t i m el ym ot i on, t he cour t m ay s t r i ke surpl us age fr om t he i ndi ctm ent ori nfor m at i on w h e n it is bo th irre lev a n t (o r i m m a ter ial) an d p re ju d icia l. L o g ic d e m a n d s th e c o n

ju n c tiv e sta n d a rd : in f o rm a tio n th a t is pr ej udi ci al , y etr el evantt o t he i ndi ctm ent , m us t be i ncl uded for anyfutur e convi ct i on t o s t and and i nfor m at i on t hati s i r r el evant need notbe s t ruck i f ther e i s no evi dence t hatt he def endantw as prej ud i ced b yi t s i nclusi on . A pp l i cat i on of the con j un ct i ve tes t i s al s o i n keepi ng w i t h t he A dvi s or y C om m i t t ee’ s N ot e t o Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 7( d) ( r efe r enci ng “i m m at er i al ori r r el evant al l egat i ons . . . w hi ch may
. . . be pr ej udi ci al ”) and the dec i s i ons8 o f o u r s is te r c o u rt s . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. R ez aq , 134 F. 3d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 3 4 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . S c a r

p a , 913 F. 2d 9 9 3 , 1 0 1 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); U nited S t ates v. P oo re , 594 F. 2d 39, 4 1 (4th C ir
. 1 9 7 9 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. A nders on, 579 F. 2d 455. 457 n .2 (8 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ), c e r t
. deni ed , 4 3 9 U .S . 9 8 0 (1 9 7 8 ); U ni t ed St at es v. B ul l ock , 4 5 1 F .2 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 1 ); s ee al s o 1 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A rt h u r R . M ille r, Feder alP r act i ce and P rocedu re § 127, at 634. ( 3d ed. 1999) ( t he “purpos e of [ Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 7( d) ] i s t o pr ot ect t he defe ndant agai ns tpr ej udi ci al a lle g a tio n s o f

ir re le v a n t o r i m m a te ri a l f a c ts ” ). H ere , w e n ee d n o t ad d ress w h ethe r th e sen tenc ing fa ctors w ere r el evantt o t he cha r ged off ens e bec aus e the G overnm ent c l a i ms t h a t t h e t h i r d s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c t me n t wa s n e i t h e rs h o wn n o r re a d to th e ju rya n d H e d g e p e th d o e s n o t co n tes t th is as s er t i on. I n t he abs ence of anyevi dence t hatt h e j ur yw as e x p o se d to th e th ird su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t, H e d g e p e th ’s c laim of pr ej udi ce fai l s befor e i t l eave s t he gat e, as i nfor m at i on never reveal ed t o the j urycou l d n ot have p rej ud i ced it s del i berat i on s. In th is c o n te x t, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng H edgepe t h’ s m ot i on t o s t r i ke por t i ons of th e th ird su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t. C . Speci al V erdi ct F orm

“ A lth o u g h sp e c ial in ter ro g a to rie s a re d isf a v o re d in cri m i nal tri al s, t his co u rt h as est abli shed n o p er s e rul e againstA sp e c ial in ter ro g a to ry h a s b e e n su b m itt e d “ a f ter ” a g u ilty 2 v e rd ict h a s b e e n re tu rn e d w h e n ju ro rs a re in stru c ted o n a sin g le for m t o ans w er t he spec i al i nt err ogat or y onl yaft er f ill in g o u t a v e rd ic t o f

g u ilty o r n o t g u ilty. Se e g e n e ra lly K ate H
. N epveu, B e y o n d “ G u ilt y ” o r “N

o t G u ilt y :” G ivin gS

p e c ia l V e rd icts in C rim in a l Ju ry T

ria ls , 21 Y al e L. & Pol ' yR ev. 263, 294 ( W i nt er 2003) (co n tr as t i ng “extr eme” pr act i ce of handi ng j ur ys peci al fi ndi ngs for m s onl y aft er t hey s t at e t hey have com e t o a ver di ct 9 t hem. ” U

nited S t ates v. P alm eri , 6 3 0 F
. 2 d 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 0 ), cer t
. deni ed , 4 5 0 U
. S
. 9 6 7 (19 8 1 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). “N evert hel es s , t her e ar e ci r cumst ance s w her e the us e of spe ci al fi ndi ngs m ay be nece s s ary , ” i ncl udi ng “w her e a d et erm i nat i on of ce r t ai n fa ct s w i l l be cruci al t o t he s ent ence . . . . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D es m ond , 6 7 0 F .2 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 8 ( 3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); see al so U n itedS ta tes v . B a rr e tt , 870 F. 2d 953, 9 5 5 ( 3d C i r . 1989) (“s harpl ycon t ras t [i ng ]” use of special i nterrogat ori es “to assi st i n s ent enci ng” w i t h t hei ri m per m i s s i bl e us e “t o cl ar i fyan a m b ig u o u s v e rd ic t” ). T h e “di s favorw i t h w hi ch court s vi ew s peci al i nt err ogat or i es i n cr i m i nal cas es r es ul t s fr om i nt err ogat or i es t hat le a d th e ju ry in a s te p -b y -s te p p ro g re s s io n to a v e rd ic t o f g u ilty.” Palm e ri , 6 3 0 F .2 d a t 2 0 2 . T h e re f o re , o u r C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t, w hen speci al fi nd i ng s are necessary for sent encing p urposes, “the appr opr i at e i nfor m at i on m aybe obt ai ned bys ubm it t i ng s peci al i nt err ogat or i es t o t he j ur yaft era gui l t yver di cthas been r etur ned. ” D es m ond , 670 F. 2d at418. 2w ith stan d ard p rac ti ce o f u sing a sin g le fo rm ). A tt he t op of the r el evantpage of t he ver dict sli p w as t he 3 fol l ow i ng s t at ement : “A s t o t he cha r ge of know i ng pos s es si on of fi r earm s bya pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed fe l on, w e fi nd t he defe ndant [G ui l t y or N ot G ui l t y ]
. ” T he nextl i ne on the ver di ct s l i p i ns t ruct ed t he j ur y as fol l ow s : “I f y ou found the def endant G ui l t y , go t o [the s peci al fi ndi ng ques t i ons ] ; i f y ou found the defe ndantN otG ui l t y , go t o [the nextchar ged count ]
. ” A lth o u g h a n a rg u m e n t co u ld b e m a d e th a t th e ju ro rs c o u ld 4 h av e loo k ed d o w n the p ag e a t th e sp ec ia l f in d ing s b ef

o re re n d ering a g u il tyv erd ict , “w e m u st assu m e tha t th e jury under s t ood and fol l ow ed t he cour t ' s i ns t ruct i ons . ” Loughm an v. C ons ol

- P enns

ylvani a C oalC o. , 6 F
. 3 d 8 8 , 1 0 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ).

10 In th is case the v erd ictsli p w as struc tured so that the ju ry w a s f irst in stru c ted to d e ter m in e w h e th e r H e d g e p e th w a s g u ilty o f p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm b ya f

e lo n a n d o n lyth e n m o v e to cons i der at i on of the s peci al fi ndi ngs . T he dange rof pr ej udi ce 3 to H ed g ep eth w as th u s all ev iat ed , as w e c an n o t saythat the ju ry w as l ed st ep- by

- s t ep t o a gui l t yver di ctw hen the s peci al fi ndi ngs fol l ow ed t he gui l t det erm i nat i on. S e e C o n so le , 13 F. 3d at663; 4 see al so U nite d S t ates v. R ug

gier o , 7 2 6 F
. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 2 9 (2d C ir
. 1 9 8 3 ) (N e w m a n , J., c o n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt) ( “an i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur y . . . t hatt he i nt err ogat or y. . . i s t o be ans w er ed onl yi n t he ev en t thatt he j ur yhas agr eed upon a g e n e ra l v e rd ict o f

g u il ty.
. . . e n a b les th e ju ryto p e rf o rm its gener al i zed t as k fi r s t , r es pondi ng t o t he i nt err ogat or yt her eaf t er11 onl yi f a gui l t yver di ctr efl ect s that t he j ur yhas found al l t he el eme n t s o f

a n o f f e n s e e s t a b l i s h e d
. ” )
. Fu r t h e r , t h e j u r yf ound t hat o n e o f t h e s p e c i a l f i n d i n g s h a d n o t b e e n p r o v e n , a nd t hat H edgepe t h w as notgui l t y on one of the cha r ges , s ugges t i ng t hat t he j ur or s w er e nots o s w ay ed byt he i ncl us i on of the s ent enci ng fac t or s on t he ver di ct s l i p t hatt heycoul d notengage i n car eful d e lib e ra tio n . See P alm eri , 6 3 0 F
. 2 d at 20 3 (cit ing jury ’s acqui t t al of de fe n d an t s on s om e count s and notot her s as evi dence t hatj ur yunder s t o o d the ver di ctfor m )
. A s w e have hel d t hats peci a l i n t e rr ogat or i es ar e appr opr i at e i n t he s ent enci ng c o n tex t w h e n th e ya re c o n sid e re d b yth e ju rya f ter a g u ilty ver di cthas been r ender ed, i tw as notan abuse of di s cr et i on for t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o al l ow t he G overnm ent t o s ubm i tt he s peci al v e rd ic t f o rm to th e ju ry.

* * * * * A s w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on ei t herbydeny i ng the pr etr i al m ot i on t o s t r i ke or s ubm i t t i ng t he s peci al ver di cts l i p t o t he j ur y , i t s jud g m entof c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e is a f f ir m e d
.