2008 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
9-5-2008 

# U SA v . C yri l H. W echt 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 . 08-2258

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . Cyri l H. W

e cht " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 457. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/457P 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. 08- 2258

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CY RI L H. W ECH T, A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l f

rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 06- cr - 00026- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r thurJ
. Schw ab

A r gued A ugus t4, 2008 Be f o r e : SM I TH, FI SHER a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: Sept ember5, 2008)2 D avi d R

. Fi ne ( A r gued) K & L G at es 17 N or th Second St r eet 18th Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 Je rry S . M c D e v itt M ark A

. R ush K & L G at es 535 Sm i thf

i el d St r eet H enry W
. O l i verB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 R i char d L

. T hornbur gh K & L G at es 1 7 3 5 N e w Y o rk A v e n u e , N .W
. Sui t e 500 W as hi ngt on, D C 20006 A t t or neys f

orAppel lant M ary B eth B uchana n R obertL
. E berhar dt R ebec ca R. H ayw ood ( A r gued) O f f i ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 700 G r antSt r eet Sui t e 4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT3 F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. T hi s appea l pr esent s ques t i ons of both f actual and l egal s i gni f i canc e. Factual l y, w e w r i t e yet anotherchapt eri n the ongoi ng appel l at e s aga s urr oundi ng the cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on of D r. C yri l H
. W echt, a renow ned form er c ou nty coroner w ho se name and fa ce have appea r ed i n the medi a overthe pas ts ever al decad es. L egall y, w e decide i ssues s urr ou nd i ng on e of the m ost r oot ed and bas i c of

ourC ons t i tut i on’ s guar ant ees of i ndi vi dual l i bert i es : the r i ghtnot“t o be tw i ce puti n j eopar dy of l i f e or lim b ” fo r t h e s a m e o ff

e n s e . U .S . C ON ST . a me n d

. V. I. T he f act s of W echt ’ s cel ebrat ed pas tand more r ece nt cr i m i nal char ges ar e ampl y des cr i bed i n ourpr evi ous opi ni ons d e c id in g in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a ls in th is m a tte r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. W echt , 4 8 4 F
. 3 d 19 4 , 19 7 -98 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( W e c h t I ); U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , --- F
. 3 d --- -, 2 0 0 8 W L 2 9 4 0 3 7 5 , at *1 (3d C ir

. A u g . 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( W

ec h t I I ). W e theref

ore need no tdw el l on tho se f act s her e. W e pick up t he s t ory on J anuary 28, 2008, w hen tr i al b eg an after a w ee k o f jury v o ird ir e p roc ee d ing s. A t i ssu e w ere f or ty- one count s of

thef tf r om an or gani zat i on r ece i vi ng f eder al f unds , and w i r e and m ai l fr aud. A f t ert w enty- thr ee tr i al days , on M ar ch 17, 2008, couns el del i ver ed cl os i ng ar gum ent s , and the D i s tr i ctC our ti ns truct ed the j ury. A m ong i t s m any i ns truct i ons w as the f ol l ow i ng:4 “The num berof

off ens es char ged i s notevi dence o f g u ilta n d s h o u ld n o t in flu e n c e y o u r d e c isio n in any w ay. Y ou m us ts epar at el y cons i derthe evidence thatrel at es t o each charge, and yo u m ust r eturn a s epar at e ver di ctf oreac h of

f ens e. Foreac h of

f ens e char ged you m us tdeci de w hetherthe gover nm enthas pr oven beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe defendanti s gui l ty of thatpart i cul arof

f ens e. Y ourdeci s i on on one of f ens e, w het her gui l ty ornotgui l ty, s houl d noti nf l uence your deci s i on on any of

the otherof

f enses c har ged. E a c h o ff e n s e s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d s e p a ra te ly .” T he j ury began i t s del i ber at i ons on M ar ch 18, 2008. T he f ol l ow i ng w eek, on M ar ch 27, 2008, the j ury s entthe D i s tr i ctC our ta not e thatr ead: “O utof the 41 count s i f any one orm or e countthe j ury cannotcome t o unani m ous agr eementon, does thatcons t i tut e a hung j ury?” The D i s tr i ctC our tcons ul t ed w i th couns el and, w i th thei rcons ent , s entthe f ol l ow i ng w r i t t en r es pons e t o t he j ury: “The ans w ert o yourques t i on i s ‘ no. ’ I ti s your d u ty , as ju ro rs, to c o n su lt w ith o n e a n o th e r, an d to d e lib e ra te w ith a v iew to re a c h in g a n a g re e m e n t if you can do s o w i thoutvi ol ence t o youri ndi vi dual j udgm ent
. E ach of

you m us tdeci de the ca s e f or your s el f , butdo so o nl y af

t eran i m part i al5 c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e ev id e n c e in th e c a s e w ith yourf el l ow j ur ors. I n the cour s e of your del i ber at i ons , do nothes i t at e t o r e- exami ne your ow n vi ew s , and cha nge yo urop i ni on, i f convi nced i ti s erroneou s. B ut do no tsurr end er your ho nest con vi c t i on a s t o the w e i gh tore f f e c tof e vi de nce s ol el y beca us e of

the opi nion of

yourf el l ow j uror s , orf

orthe mer e purpos e of r eturni ng a v e rd ic t.” A n o ther w ee k lat er, on T h u rsda y , A p ri l 3, 20 0 8 , the ju ry s enta not e t o the D i s tr i ctC our t , w hi ch i ncl uded the f ol l ow i ng l anguage : “A f t erconsi der i ng al l count s i n a var i ety of w ays and i n r econs i der at i on of al l i ndi vi dual opi ni ons acc or di ng t o the courti ns truct i ons – w e have un ani m ous l y agr ee [ s i c] w e have r eac hed an i m pas s e & re s pect f

ul l y re ques tdi r ect i on f

r om the court
. W e agr ee a ddi t i onal del i ber at i on w oul d not b e h e lp fu l.” T h e D istric t C o u rt re a d a n d sh o w e d th is n o te to c o u n se l an d to ld them that i tw as i ncli ne d to p oll the jur ors i nd i vidual l y to ask w hetherthey w er e “hopel es s l y de adl ocked” and w hetherf ur ther d eli b era ti o n s w o u ld l ea d t o a un an im o u s ve rdict, an d th en to r ead t o the j ury I ns truc t i on 9. 05 of the Thi r d Ci r c ui t ’ s model crim inal jury instruction s (Instruc ti o n 9
. 0 5 ). A f t eri nf or m i ng cou nsel of

i t s i nt ent i ons , the D i s tr i ct C our tal l ow ed them t i m e t o con si derthe i s s ue. A f t ercouns el6 del i ber at ed, t he G overnm ents ugges t ed t o the D i s tr i ctC our tthat i ts end t o the j ury a not e asking i f i tcoul d r eac h a unani m ous ver di cton any of

the count s beca us e “the G overnm enti s not convi nced thatthe j ury unde r s t ands orperhaps i s appr i s ed that a part i al ver di cti s a p ossi bi l i ty. ” The G overnm entthen s ugges t ed that , i f

the j ury r es ponded thati tcoul d notr eac h a part i al ver di ct , the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d then g i ve I ns truct i on 9. 05, butnotconducti ndi vi dual pol l i ng. D ef ens e couns el obj ect ed t o the G overnm ent ’ s pr opos ed co u rse o f ac ti o n . H e su g g ested instead that the D istri ct C o u rt br i ng the j ur ors int o t he courtr oom and pol l them i ndi vi dual l y, buti f eac h expr es s ed thataddi t i onal del i ber at i ons w oul d not break t he deadl ock, thatthe C our tdecl ar e a mi s tr i al and di s char ge the j ury. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e c id e d to d o w h a t ith a d o rig in a lly s ugges t ed. A ccor di ngl y, i thad t he j ur or s r eturn t o the court room . I tpol l ed them i ndi vi dual l y, as ki ng the f ol l ow i ng tw o q u e stio n s: (1 ) “ D o y o u a g re e th a t th e ju ry is h o p e les sly deadl ocked? ”; and ( 2) “D o you bel i eve thatf ur therdel i ber at i ons w o u ld n o t l e a d to a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict? ” E a c h re sp o n d e d to b o th q u esti o n s affirm ati v ely, i. e., tha t he o r she b eli ev ed the ju ry t o be hopel es s l y deadl ocked a nd thataddi t i onal del i ber at i ons w ou l d no tbe hel pf

ul

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen r ead I ns truct i on 9
. 0 5 t o th e m:

“ M e m b e rs o f th e ju ry , I am g o in g to a sk y o u to re tu rn to th e ju ry ro o m a n d d e li b e r a te fu rt h e r. I re a lize th a t y o u a re h a v in g so m e d iffic u lty r eac hi ng unani m ous agr eement , butthatis notW e h a ve q uo t e d I ns truc t i on 9
. 05 a s i ta pp e a r s i n our 1 m o d el cr i m i nal j ury i nst ruct i on s. W hat the D i stri ctC ou rt 7 u n u su al. A n d o ft en after furthe r discu ssi on , j u rors ar e abl e t o w or k outthei rdi f f er ence s and agr ee. It is y o u r d u ty , as ju ro rs, to c o n su lt w ith o n e a n o th e r, an d to d e lib e ra te w ith a v iew to r eachi ng an agr eementi f you can do s o w i thout vi ol e nc e t o i nd i vi du a l j ud gmen t
. Eac h o f you m u st d e c id e th e c a se fo r y o u rse lf, b u t d o so o n ly a fte r a n im p a rtial c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e e v id e n c e in the ca s e w i th yourf

el l ow j ur or s . I n the cour s e of yourdel i ber at i ons , do nothesi t at e t o r e- exami ne y o u r o w n v iew s, a n d c h a n g e y o u r o p in io n , if convi nced i ti s err oneous. B utdo nots urr ender yourhones tconvi ct i on as t o the w ei ghtoref f ect of evi dence sol el y becaus e of the opi ni on of

your f el l ow j ur or s , orf

ort he m er e purpos e of

r eturni ng a v erd ict

. L ist en ca refu ll y to w h at th e o ther juro rs have t o s ay, and then dec i de f or your s el f

i f the g o v ern m en t has p rov ed the d efe n d an t gu il ty b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. W hat I hav e j ustsai d is n o tm eant t o rush or pr es s ur e you i nt o agr eei ng on a ver di ct
. T ake as m uch t i m e as you need to di scuss things. T her e i s no hurry. W ith th a t in stru c tio n , I w ill re tu rn y o u to th e ju ry ro o m . T h a n k y o u .” 1actual l y r ead t o the j ury does notdi f ferfr om the model i n any m at er i al w ay. 8 T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen s entthe j ur or s back t o del i ber at e, w hi ch they di d f

oran addi t i onal tw enty m i nut es thatday. A f t erthe j ur or s l ef

tthe courtr oom , the G overnment ren ew ed it s req u est th at th e D istrict C o u rtask the ju rors col l ect i vel y i f

they coul d r eac h a part i al ver di ct
. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeni ed the r eques t
. A f t erf or m al pr oceedi ngs r ece s s ed, the G overnm entf

i l ed a m ot i on re ques t i ng fort he t hi r d t i m e that the D istri ct C o u rtg ive th e jury a p arti al v erd ictinstruction

. In a w ritte n f

ili n g o n A p ril 4 , 2 0 0 8 , W e c h t’s c o u n se l o b jec ted to th e p r o p o s e d i n s tru c t i o n a n d c r o s s - mo v e d f o ra mi s tr i a l

. He g a v e th e fo llo w in g re a so n fo r m istria l: “[ T ] he def

ens e r es pect f

ul l y m oves f

orthe di s char ge of

the j ury and decl ar at i on of a mi s tr i al i n l i ghtof

the j ury’ s unqual i f

i ed i ndi vi dual decl ar at i ons thatthey ar e hopel es s l y deadl ocked a n d th a t fu rth e r d e lib e ra tio n s w o u ld n o t lea d to u n a n im o u s v e rd icts . In d e e d , req u irin g a ju ry to cont i nue del i ber at i ons des pi t e genui ne and i rr econc i l abl e di s agr eementm or e of t en than not d efe ats th e en d s of pu b li c justi ce ; n o t o n ly w ill su c h c o m p u lsio n n e e d les sly w a ste v a lu a b le j udi ci al r es our ces , i tm ay coe r ce e rr oneous v e rd ic ts .”9 L ater tha t day , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e G o v ern m en t’ s p a r t i a l ve r d i c ti n s tru c t i o n r e q u e s t , b u td i d n o ta tth a tt i me a d d re ss th e d e fe n se m o tio n fo r a m istria l. O n M o n d a y , A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 8 , a ft e r th e ju ry re su m e d its del i ber at i ons f

orthe f i r s tt i m e s i nce the pr i orThur s day, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or derde nyi ng W echt ’ s w r i t t en mot i on f ora mi s tr i al

. T he j ury del i ber at ed f orf ourhour s on thatday. Shor t l y bef

or e 9: 00 the nextm orni ng, A pr i l 8, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tcl erk t el ephoned c ouns el and ent er ed the f ol l ow i ng on i t s docket : “C ouns el f orthe G overnm entand D ef ens e and a l l part i es ar e her eby O R D E R E D t o appea rt oday, 04 / 08 / 08 at9: 15 A M
. ” N ei therthe t el ephone c al l northe elec tr o n ic no ti ce d esc ri b ed the p u rpo se fo r w h ich c o u n sel w ere s um m oned. A t9: 20 a. m . on A pr i l 8, 2008, w i th the j ury pr es ent , the D i stri ctC ou rtop ened the p roceeding as f oll ow s:

“ T H E C O U R T : G o o d m o rn in g . T h a n k y o u a ll f orga ther i ng pur s uantt o the not i ce on the El e c tr o n i c Ca s e F i l i n g s y s t e m. Foryour and t he j ury’ s s af ety and the pr es erved good or der , I w oul d ask thatyou f ol l ow the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i ons thi s m orni ng: E v e ry o n e s h o u ld re m a in in th e ir se a ts thr oughoutthi s pr ocee di ng f r om now unt i l w hen th e j u r y a n d I e x i tth e c o u r tr o o m.10 N o o n e w ill b e p e rm itt e d to b e ru n n in g in and outof

the courtr oom as happene d l as tw eek. S e c o n d ly , I ex p e c t ev e ry o n e to b e q u iet, and i f anyone w ant s t o m ake mot i ons or obj ect i ons t o thi s pr ocee di ng orw hat ever , they m ay do s o i n w r i t i ng on E C F , as w e have done th ro u g h o u t th e trial. If any on e i s unw i l l i ng to ab i de b y these in stru c tio n s, I w ill g iv e y o u tim e n o w to e x it. T hank you f

oryouras s i s t ance and cooper at i on. T he j ury has i nf

or m ed the bai l i f

f thatthey re m a in h o p e les sly d e a d lo c k e d a n d a re u n a b le to rea ch a u n an im o u s v erd icto n the d efe n d an t’ s g u ilto n a n y o f t h e 4 1 c o u n ts a n d a re u n a b le to r eac h a unani m ous ver dicto n the def endantnot being gu i l ty o f any of the 4 1 co un t s. T h e ju ro rs’ no te w il l be m ark ed as C o u rt E xhi bi t13, and I have c opi es ther eof , w hi ch you c a n p ick u p w h e n w e ’re d o n e w ith th is pr ocee di ng, w hi ch has del et ed the nam es of pr es um abl y t he f

or eper s on and s ecr et ary. T he nam es of

the j ur or s have notbeen r el eas ed pur s uantt o my O r derof C our t
. U nt i l the11 T h ird C irc u it d e ter m in e s o th e rw ise , tha t w ill re m a in in e ffe c t. T hus , def

endanti s s t i l l char ged w i th eac h of the 41 count s w i th the cons t i tut i onal pr es um pt i on of

i nno cence as t o eac h of the 41 cou nts
.It is th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re sp o n sib ili ty to d e c id e w h e th e r o r n o t to re try th e d e fe n d a n t. D oes the governm enthave a deci s i on t oday w hethert he governm entw i l l r etry the d e fe n d a n t? [G O V E R N M E N T ] : W e d o , Y o u r H o n o r, a n d w e w ill

. T H E C O U R T : I w oul d as k thatby Fr i day a t n o o n th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t file a n o tice a s to w hi ch of t he count s , w hi ch coul d be as f ew as one oras m any as the 41, w hi ch of the count s w i l l be tried in th e retria l. Is th e g o v e rn m e n t p re p a re d to pr ocee d i m m edi at el y t o r etry the ca s e? [G O V E R N M E N T ] : W e are , Y o u r H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : Is th e d e fe n se p re p a re d to i m m edi at el y r etry the ca s e?12 [ D E FE N SE ] : W e w i l l have s ever al m oti on s t o m ake b efor e t hat happ ens. T H E C O U R T : O k ay . Ju st f o r ev ery o n e’s sc h e d u lin g p u rp o se , I w ill se t th e trial fo r M a y 7 th – excuse m e – M ay 27th, w hi ch i s the day a f t er M e mo r i a l Da y , M a y 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 , a tn i n e a . m. T hats houl d gi ve def ens e and the governm ents uf

f i ci entt i m e t o f

i l e w hate ver m o tio n s th e y w ish to re sp e c tiv e ly file. O n b e h a lf of the def endant , w hen w oul d you l i ke t o f i l e any m o ti o n s y o u w ish to fil e, si r? [D E F E N S E ]: I w ill n e e d so m e tim e to thi nk aboutthat

. T hi s i s qui t e a s urpr i s e. T H E C O U R T : O kay. I kn ow everyone n e e d s a littl e re s t, s o I a p p re c ia te t h a t m a tte r. I w oul d as k the def

ens e, i f you w oul d ki ndl y f

or m e, pl eas e f

i l e any m ot i ons you have by noon on A pr i l 18, 2008. If y o u find after refl ec ti o n that d ate d o esn ’t w or k f oryou, then j us tf

i l e an appr opr i at e mot i on, and I w i l l w or k w i th you i n thatr egar d. I w i l l send outa sche dul i ng orde ras t o the M a y 2 7 th , 2 0 0 8 d a te w ith o u t p re ju d ice to w h atev er d efe n d an t’ s m o ti o n s w il l com e b efo re m e.13 B ef or e I decl ar e a mi s tr i al and di s char ge the jury, I w i sh t o ex press several things. Fi r s tof a l l , I w antt o thank ourw onder f ul c o u rt re p o rt e rs . . . .” A f t erthanki ng v ari ous courtper s onnel and the j ur or s , the D istri ct C o u rtstat ed : “I de clare a m istri al. I disch arg e the jury and the al t ernat e j ury . . . . ” The j ury not e t o w hi ch the D i s tr i ct C our tr ef err ed butw hi ch, a s i ndi cat ed, w as nots how n t o couns el unt i l af t erthe j ury w as al r eady di s char ged, s t at ed i n i t s ent i r ety: “Pur s uantt o courti ns truct i ons the j ury cont ends w e hav e exh aust ed all fur ther del i berat i on eff ort s. W e a g re e u n a n im o u sly th a t w e a re u n a b le to r eac h a unani m ous ver di ct– on al l 41 c ount s and ar e es s ent i al l y deadl ock ed i n the ca s e of U ni t ed S ta te s o f A m e ri c a v s . C y ri l H . W e c h t.” O n M o n d a y , A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , W e c h t filed a m o tio n to di s m i s s the i nd i ctm entand pr ecl ude the G overnm entf r om fur ther prosecut i on i n viol at i on of the D ou ble J eop ardy C l ause of t he Fi f th A m endmen t
. T he G overnm entr es ponded on A pr i l 17, 2008. T he D i st ri ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on on A pr i l 29, 2008. I n i t s tw enty- one- page or derdenyi ng the m ot i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tof

f er ed a num berof r at i onal es . Fi r s t , t he D i s tr i ct C our tr eas oned that , be caus e W echthad moved f ora mi s tr i al the pr evi ous w eek, he i s deemed t o have c ons ent ed t o the decl ar at i on of

m i s tr i al on A pr i l 8, 2008. Second, the D i s tr i ct14 C our tas s ert ed thatW echtcons ent ed t o the mi s tr i al beca us e, dur i ng the A pr i l 8, 2008 pr ocee di ng, hi s c ouns el di d notobj ect to th e m istria l. T h ird , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t “it c a n n o t be s eriou sly d ispu ted th at th e jury w as h o p elessly deadl ocked, and that , ther ef or e, m ani f

es tnece s s i ty r equi r ed d e c la ra tio n o f a m is tr ia l a n d d is c h a rg e o f t h e ju ry .” T h a t sa m e d a y , W e c h t filed a n o tic e o f a p p e a l to th is C o u rt fro m th e o rd e r d e n y in g d ism iss a l o f th e in d ictm e n t. W echtal s o f

i l ed a m ot i on i n the D i s tr i ctCourts eeki ng a s t ay of the r etr i al pendi ng ap peal

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed that m ot i on on M ay 2, 2008, w r i t i ng i n i t s f i f t een- page or derthat W echt ’ s appea l t o the Thi r d Ci r cui tw as “ f r i vol ous ” and thathe w as s eeki ng “t o del ay thes e pr ocee di ngs . ” W echtthen f i l ed an emer gency mot i on f

ora s t ay i n ourC our t , w hi ch w e gr ant ed on M ay 8, 2008. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s orde r d e n y in g W e c h t’s m o tio n to d ism iss th e in d ictm e n t o n d o u b le je o p a rd y g ro u n d s u n d e r th e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . A bney v

. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 3 1 U .S . 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (1 9 7 7 ). W h e th e r re trial is per m i t t ed i n acc or dance w i th the D oubl e J eopar dy C l ause d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r th e first tria l h a s e n d e d w ith a p ro p e rly d e c la re d m is tr ia l. U

nited S tates v. R i vera , 384 F. 3d 49, 54 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. T he degr ee of def er ence w e ac cor d t o the D i s tri ct C o u rt ’s m istri al de clarati o n v aries de p en d ing on w h y the C o u rt r eac hed the dec i s i on, as w el l as w hetheri texer ci s ed s ound d is c re tio n in re a c h in g it. See A r iz ona v . W as hi ngt on , 43 4 U. S.15 497, 507- 10 & n. 28 ( 1978 ). W e w i l l expl or e thes e degr ees of d e fe re n c e la te r i n th e o p in io n . See II I.C , i nfr a . III
. A . T he I deal W e begi n by di s cus s i ng the hal l m ark of s ound di s cr et i on i n thi s ar ea: the pr ocedur es thatdi s t ri ctcour t s s houl d f ol l ow p ri o r t o d e c la r in g a m is tr ia l b a s e d o n a d e a d lo c k e d ju ry . See U ni t ed Stat es v. D i

xon , 913 F. 2d 1305, 1311 ( 8th C i r . 1990) (“ W h a t w e se e k is as su ra n c e o n th e re c o rd th a t th e d istric t co u rt, i n decl ar i ng a mi s t ri al , act ed r es pons i bl y and del i ber at el y, and a c c o rd e d c a re fu l c o n sid e ra tio n to [th e d e fe n d a n t’s] in ter e st in havi ng the tr i al concl uded i n a s i ngl e pr oceedi ng. ” ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). W e fin d u sefu l th e T h ir d C ir cu it ’s m odel cr i m i nal j ury i ns truct i on 9. 06, appr oved i n J anuary 2007, w hi ch cons i s t s notof

a j ury i ns truct i on, butof the f ol l ow i ng co m m en t ( C o m m en t 9.06 ): “I f the j ury i ndi cat es thatiti s s t i l l deadl ocked af t erthe courthas gi ven i ns truct i on 9. 05 ( D eadl ocked J ury – R eturn f orD el i ber at i ons ) , the C o m m ittee rec o m m en d s the foll o w ing p roc ed u re be f ol l ow ed and r ecor ded. F i rst , t o det erm i ne w hethe ra s uppl ement al char ge i s ne ces s ary, the courts houl d ques t i on the f or eper s on, butm us tt ake s t eps t o ens ur e thatthe f or eper son does notr evea l ei therthe numer i cal s pl i ton the j ury orthe pos i t i on of the m aj or i ty.16 S e e U n itedS ta tes v . F io rilla , 850 F. 2d 172, 175 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); G overnm entof V i r gi n I s lands v. R o m a in , 600 F. 2d 435 ( 3d C i r . 1979)

. For exampl e, the courtm ay addr es s the f or eper s on as fol l ow s:

‘ A dv i s e me of

the s t atus of del i ber at i ons . I f

the j ury i s di vi ded, I do n o t w an t t o k n o w the n u m b ers o r th e d ire c tio n . I o n ly w a n t to know w hetherin yourj udgm ent th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t th e ju ry c a n a rriv e a t a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict in th is c a se if s e n t b a c k fo r f

u rt h e r d e lib e ra tio n s .’ Second , i f

the f or eper s on i ndi cat es thatthe j ury i s deadl ocked, t he cour tshoul d quest i on eac h j uror, aski ng ‘D o y o u agree that there i s a hopel es s deadl ock w hi ch ca nnotbe r es ol ved by f ur therdel i ber at i ons ?’ T hird , i f j ur or s ’ ans w er s r ef

l ectthatthey are d ea d lock ed , the c o u rtsh o u ld ex cu se th e jury and hold a hear i ng w i th couns el and the def endant

. T he courtshoul d el i ci tthe pos i t i ons of a ll th e p a rties , tak in g p a rticu la r c a re to g e t a r ecor d of

the pos i t i on of

the def endant ( s ) and d e fe n se c o u n se l o n w h e th e r to d e c lar e a m istria l. I f the courtde cl ar es a mi s tr i al thati s notr equi r ed by m ani f

es tnece s s i ty, the D oubl e J eopar dy17 C l aus e w i l l bara r etr i al of the cas e unl es s the d e fe n d a n t c o n s e n te d to th e m is tr ia l. Se e U ni t ed S ta tes v . D in itz , 4 2 4 U .S
. 6 0 0 (1 9 7 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R i vera , 3 8 4 F
. 3 d 4 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). W hen the def

end ant doe s notcons entt o the m istria l, th e co u rts c o n sid e r a n u m b e r o f fa c to rs to det erm i ne w hetherthe mi s tr i al r epr es ent s an abus e of di s cr et i on and w het her i tbar s f ur ther pr os ecut i on: 1
. a tim e ly o b

jec tio n b y th e d e fe n d a n t; 2
. th e ju ry ’s c o llec tiv e o p in io n th a t it cannotagr ee; 3. the lengt h o f j ury deli berat i on s; 4
. th e len g th o f th e trial; 5. t he compl exi ty of the i s s ues pr es ent ed t o the j ury; 6
. any proper com m uni cat i ons betw een the j udge and j ury; 7. the ef

f ect s of exhaus t i on and t he i m pactof

coer ci on of

f ur ther del i ber at i ons on the j ury. See [c ita tio n ].18 If th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t a m istria l is n e c e ss a ry , the c o u rt sh o u ld m a k e a n e x p licit f i ndi ng of m ani f

es tnece s s i ty. Forexampl e, the courtm ay s t at e:

‘ B as ed on an e val uat i on of the foll o w ing fac tors (st ate fac tors relev an t to ca se), I f

ind th at th e jury i s unabl e t o r eac h a ver di ct , that f ur therdel i ber at i ons w oul d be f ut i l e, and thatther e i s no al t ernat i ve butt o decl ar e a mi s tr i al fo r re a s o n s o f m a n ife st n e c e ss ity a n d to d is m is s th e ju ry .’ Fo u rth , the courtshoul d cal l the j ury back in to th e c o u rt ro o m a n d d is c h a rg e th e ju ro rs .” T oday w e h ol d thatdi s tr i ctcourt s i n ourC i r cui ts houl d f ol l ow the above pr ocedur e pr i ort o decl ar i ng a mi s tr i al based o n a d e a d lo c k e d jur y . W e u se th e w o rd “ sh o u ld ” in ste a d o f “ m u st” beca us e the or der l y pr oces s of j ury del i ber at i on s r es t s i n the d isc re tio n o f th e trial ju d g e , an d w e d o n o t w ish to b in d h is hands w i thoutr egar d t o the f actual a nd pr ocedur al hi s t ory i n any in d iv id u a l c a s e . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . T

ra la , 386 F. 3d 536 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “i ti s w el l

- es t abl i s hed t hat[ a di s tr i ctcourt ] has br oad d isc re tio n to d e ter m in e h o w lo n g ju ry d e lib e ra tio n s s h o u ld c o n tin u e ” ), vacated on othergr ounds , 5 4 6 U .S
. 1 0 8 6 (20 0 6 ). W e al s o not e t hatsome of our s i s t erci r cui t s have i nt erpr et ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s pr ece denti n W as hi ngt on t o hol d that“the tr i al j ud ge d oes no thav e t o m ake an exp l i ci tfi nd i ng of ‘ m an if est19 n ec essity’ o r ex p ressly sta te th at pa rt icular a lt ern ati v es w ere cons i der ed and r ej ect ed. ” D i xon , 913 F. 2d at1311. A g a in , w e d o n o t tu rn C o m m e n t 9 .0 6 in to a m a n d a te, b u t, al l el s e bei ng equal , a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s e xpl anat i on of i t s deci s i on on the r ecor d hel ps the part i es , thi s C our ton appea l , and t he d is tr ic t c o u r t i ts e lf

in its e x e rc is e o f s o u n d d is c re tio n . See i d. A s such, w e bel i eve thatther e ar e f ew s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the proced ure ou tl i ned i n C om m ent 9. 06 w ou l d n ot be the m ost des i r abl e o ne t o f

ol l ow . T hus , i ts houl d be f ol l ow ed i n cas es i nvol vi ng a mi s tr i al decl ar at i on bas ed on a de adl ocked j ury. I n addi t i on, di s tr i ctcourt s m us tf ol l ow Feder al R ul e of C ri m i nal Procedu re 26. 3, w hich provides: “B ef or e or der i ng a mi s tr i al , the cour tm us tgi ve eac h defendan t an d t he go vernm ent a n oppor tuni ty t o comm enton the pr opr i ety of the order , t o s t at e w hetherthatparty cons ent s or o b je c ts , a n d to s u g g e s t a lte rn a tiv e s .” H er e, w e us e the w or d “must ” bec aus e the R ul e i t s el f uses that w or d. W e not e f

ur therthatC om m ent9. 06 s t at es that“[ t ] he co u rtsh o u ld elicit th e p o sit ion s o f all the p arti es” in the thir d s t ep of i t s out l i ned pr ocedur e. W e do notequat e that re c o m m e n d a tio n in C o m m e n t 9 .0 6 w ith th e m a n d a te in R u le 2 6 .3 b e c a u se d o in g so w o u ld a ttac h a p re c ise tim e sta m p to R u le 2 6 .3 w h e n its te x t m e re ly s ta te s , “ [b ]e fo re o rd e ri n g a m is tr ia l.” A tthe s ame t i m e, di s tr i ctcourt s s houl d be mi ndf ul t o f ol l ow R u le 2 6 .3 a t a s e n sib le m o m e n t, w h ich o fte n w ill b e o n e th a t isI tappea r s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tg ave I ns truct i on 9. 05 2 part i al l y on M ar ch 27, 2008 i n r es pons e t o the j ury’s ques t i on pert ai ni ng t o part i al ver di ct s , and then gave i tf ul l y on A pr i l 3, 2 0 0 8 in resp o n se to the ju ry’ s first e x p ression o f de ad lock

. It 20 c lo s e r t o th e a c tu a l m o m e n t in w h ic h a m is tr ia l is d e c la re d . W e w ill e x p la in w h y s h o rt ly

. See II I.B , i nfr a . W e have ther ef

or e s um m ar i zed the i deal s etof pr ocedur es – C om m ent9. 06 combi ned w i th R ul e 26. 3 atan oppor tune mom ent– t o be f ol l ow ed by di s tr i ctco ur t s w hen f ace d w i th the dec i s i on t o decl ar e a mi s tr i al l eadi ng t o the di s char ge of

a dea dl ocked j ury. B . T he V i ol at i on T he D i s tr i ctC our ther e di d notf ol l ow the i deal s etof p ro c e d u re s a s w e h a v e o u tli n e d in th e p re v io u s s u b se c tio n . It is cl earthat , af

t er the j ury i ndi cat ed thati tw as s t i l l deadl ocked af t err ece i vi ng I ns truct i on 9. 05 i n f ul l , the C our tdi d notf

ol l ow C om m ent9. 06. I tdi d notques t i on the f ore per s on, pol l the j ur or s i ndi vi dual l y, or“hol d a hea r i ng w i th couns el and the defend ant” out si de the presence of the j ury; i tperf orm ed those ac ti o n s b e fore g iving Instruc ti o n 9
. 0 5
. T h e se q u en ce m att ers beca us e ea ch t i m e I ns truct i on 9. 05 ora s i m i l ars uppl ement al charge is g iven , the jury d el i berat es f urther, and any progress thati s m ade dur i ng thos e addi t i onal del i ber at i ons m i ghtbe unacc ount ed f

orw hen the tr i al j udge t hen decl ar es a mi s tr i al p re c ip ito u sly . B y fo llo w in g C o m m e n t 9 .0 6 ju st p rio r to decl ar i ng a mi s tr i al , the tr i al j udge ens ur es thatthos e addi t i onal del i ber at i ons ar e r ef

l ect ed i n hi s deci s i onm aki ng. 2coul d be ar gued, t hen, t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our tf ol l ow ed much of C om m ent9. 06 a f

t eri tga ve the part i al I ns truct i on 9. 05. B utthe id e a l, no n e th e les s, w o u ld h a v e b e e n fo r th e D istric t C o u rt to f ol l ow al l of C om m ent9. 06 aft ergi vi ng t he f ul l Ins truct i on 9. 05 and the j ury agai n expr es s i ng deadl ock. 21 F u rth e r, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t “m a k e a n e x p licit fin d in g o f m a n ife st n e c e ss ity ,” u n d e r th e se v e n fac to rs liste d in the thi r d s t ep of

C om m ent9. 06, pr i ort o c al l i ng the j ur or s back i nto the co urtroom and dis chargi ng them

. T he C ou rt ’s ex p ost o rd e r o n A p ril 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 c o m e s f a r to o la te to se rv e to c o m p ly w i th C om m ent9. 06 w hen a mi s tr i al w as decl ar ed back on A pr i l 8, 2008. St i l l , be caus e t oday’ s deci s i on l eave s C om m ent 9. 06 as a r ecomm endat i on i ns t ead of turni ng i ti nt o a m andat e, w e do nots t at e thatthe C our t“vi ol at ed” Com m ent9. 06. F e d e ra l R u le o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 2 6 .3 , h o w e v e r, is anotherm att er . D es pi t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr ocl amat i on that “[ t ] her e ca n be no doubt , on the r ecor d bef or e thi s C our t , that overa f i ve day pe r i od, thi s Courtf ul l y a nd f

ai thf ul l y compl i ed w i th Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 26. 3 i n l ett era nd i n s pi r i t , ” w e f i nd on the p re s e n t r e c o rd th a t th e C o u r t d id in d e e d v io la te th e R u le . W e re p e a t th a t th e R u le’ s te x t state s o n ly tha t a c o u rt m u s t c o n su lt w ith c o u n se l “[b ]efo re o rd e rin g a m istria l.” T h e C o u rt h e re d id s o cons ultb ef

or e or der i ng a mi s tr i al , s peci f i cal l y on A pr i l 3, 2008. B utA pr i l 3, 2008, w as fi ve days pr i ort o w hen the D i s tr i ctC our tactual l y decl ared the mi s tr i al

. O n the one ha nd, w e coul d i nt erpr et“bef ore or der i ng a mi s tr i al ” l i t er al l y as any t i m e ( no m att erof

w hatdur at i on) bef

or e or der i ng a mi s tr i al , but22 doi ng s o w oul d ef

f ect i vel y re ndert he R ul e a nul l i ty. T he 1993 A dvi s ory C om m i t t ee N ot es t o the R ul e s t at e, i nt eral i a: “T he R ul e ens ur es thata def endanthas the oppor tuni ty t o di s s uade a j udge f r om decl ar i ng a m i s tr i al i n a ca s e w her e gr ant i ng one w oul d notbe an abus e of

di s cr et i on, butthe def

endantbel i eves that the p rosp ec ts f

o r a fav o rab le ou tcom e b efo re thatpart i cul arcourt , orj ury, ar e gr eat erthan they m ig h t b e u p o n re tr ia l.” T hu s, con sul t i ng w i th co un sel t oo ea rl y (and n ever do i ng so agai n pr i ort o decl ar i ng m i s tr i al ) , al bei tw i thi n the l i t er al t extof the R ul e, i s notcons i s t entw i th the s pi r i tand purpos e of the R u le. T h is is so b e c a u se w h e th e r “th e p ro sp e c ts fo r a f a v o ra b le o u tco m e ” a re g re a ter in c o u n se l’s v iew d e p e n d s o n th e fu ll p a n o p ly o f fa c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l in fo rm a tio n a v a ilab le to co u n sel just p ri o r to m istri al d ec larati o n , rath er th an w ell b efo re th a twh e n c o u n s e l d o e s n o ty e th a v e th a ti n f o r ma t i o n . I n s u m, i nt erveni ng event s m i ghtchange tr i al s tr at egy, s uch that , w hen a t ri al j udge f

ol l ow s R ul e 26. 3 t oo ear l y, the corr es pondi ng hear i ng orcons ul t at i on f ai l s t o r epr es entthe part i es ’ pos i t i on as acc ur at el y as i tw oul d w er e R ul e 26. 3 f ol l ow ed ata mom ent cl os ert o t he ac tual m i s tr i al decl ar at i on. T he ques t i on then, i s w hether , i n l i ghtof the prese nt re c o rd , the D istric t C o u rt v io late d R u le 2 6 .3 b y “ fo llo w in g ” it t oo e a r l y. W e a ns w e rthi s qu e s t i on i n the a f f i r mat i ve . I tw as l audabl e f

ort he D i s tr i ctC our tt o cons ul tw i th couns el as t o w hat i ts houl d do af

t erthe j ury’ s f

i r s tnot e expr es s i ng deadl ock. N everthel es s , t oo many i nt erveni ng e vent s tr ans pi r ed betw een23 that m o m en t and the u lt im ate m istri al d ec larati o n fo r th e C o u rt to re ly o n its in iti a l co m p lian c e w ith R u le 2 6 .3 a s s a tisfy in g its o b lig a tio n to fo llo w th e R u le f o r a ll i n ten ts a n d p u rp o se s u n til the j ury’ s di s char ge. T he i nt erveni ng event s i ncl uded: (1 ) giving th e jury Instruction 9.05 on a T h u rsda y , (2) tw e n ty m inu tes o f ad d it ion al de li berat ion that d ay , (3) rec essin g the ju ry f orthe w eeke nd, ( 4) f

ouraddi t i onal hours of del i ber at i on on the f ol l ow i ng M onday, and ( 5) a s econd j ury not e expr ess i ng deadl ock phr as ed di ff

er ent l y f r om the f i r s t
. T hes e i nt erveni ng event s hei ght ened the possi bi l i ty thatcouns el w oul d have d if feren t view s o r ar g u m en ts t o m ak e h ad the D istri ct C o u rt con sul t ed w i th them again aft er the ev ents
. M or eover , the r ecor d i n thi s c as e i ndi cat es that , w hen the D i s tr i ctC our tr ece i ved the f i r s tj ury not e of

deadl ock on A pr i l 3, 2 0 0 8 , i thad no i ntent i on t o declar e a m i stri al atthat t im e. In f act , i thad al r eady expr es s ed t o counse l i t s i nt ent i on t o pol l the juro rs i n d ividu all y an d g ive th em In stru cti o n 9
. 0 5 b efo re def ens e couns el r eques t ed a m i s tr i al

. T he cons ul t at i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tha d w i th c ouns el on thatda t e, ther ef or e, w as not p u r s u a n tt o Ru l e 2 6
. 3 , th a ti s , d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i tc o u n s e l ’ s v i e ws w i th r es pectt o the pr opr i et y of a mi s tr i al ; r ather , the cons ul t at i on w as a t angent i al one des i gned ( 1) t o i nf or m couns el o f th e first ju ry n o te e x p re ss in g d e a d lo c k , a n d (2 ) to e licit th e ir vi ew s as t o how t o r es pond t o the not e. H ad def ens e couns el not as ked f ora m i s tr i al atthatj unctur e, thatout come m i ghtnothave fig u re d in th e c o n su ltatio n a t all. W i thoutthe abi l i ty t o r es or tt o i t s conducton A pri l 3, 2 0 0 8 , th e D istric t C o u rt h a s n o b a sis o n w h ich to a v e r th a t it fo llo w e d R u le 2 6 .3 “ fu lly a n d fa ith fu lly

. . . in le tter a n d inW e a r e w e l l a w a r e tha tthe D i s tr i c tCour tw ou l d h ave 3 neede d the j ury i n the c ou r tr oo m t o c on du c tp ol l i ng , b utt he r ecor d i s abundant l y cl earthatthe D i st r i ctC our thad no i nt ent i on of

pol l i ng the j ur or s orf

ol l ow i ng any ot herpor t i on of C o m m e n t 9 .0 6 o r R u le 2 6 .3 o n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 , o th e r th a n sim p ly di s char gi ng the j ury. 24 spi ri t
. ” T his is so becau se t he D i stri ctC ou rtd i d no tcom e cl ose to fo llo w in g R u le 2 6 .3 a t th e A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 p ro c e e d in g . F irst, it d id n o t sh o w o r re a d to c o u n se l v e rb a tim th e se c o n d ju ry n o te u n til a fte r m istria l w a s a lre a d y d e c la re d . S e c o n d , ite x p licitly i ns truct ed cou ns el “t o be qui et , and i f anyone w ant s t o m ake m ot i ons orobj ect i ons t o thi s pr ocee di ng orw hat ever , they may d o s o in w ri tin g o n E C F , a s w e h a v e d o n e th ro u g h o u t th e tr ia l.” T hi r d, i tannounce d the new devel opm entand i t s corr es pondi ng i nt ent i ons i n the j ury’ s pr es ence . A tno t i m e duri ng t hat 3 p ro c e e d in g d id th e D is trict C o u rt so licit c o u n se l’s v iew s a s to the pr opr i ety of

the i m pendi ng m i s tr i al decl ar at i on. T he l ack of i nf or m at i on t o couns el r ender ed di f f i cul tt hei rabi l i ty t o m ake a n i nf or m ed deci s i on; t he ef

f ect i ve gag or derre nder ed di f f i cul tany a tte m p t b y c o u n s e l to u rg e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to fo llo w R u le 2 6 .3 at th at t im e ; an d the fa ct th at th is al l occ u rred in the jury ’s p re se n c e re n d e re d d iffic u lt th e a b ili ty o f d e fe n se c o u n se l to o b jec t o r e v e n a sk fo r a sid e b a r, fo r fe a r th a t th e ju ry w o u ld bl ame t he def

ens e f orpr ol ongi ng i t s t erm of s ervi ce. C . The R e m e dy O u r f i nd i ng that a Fed eral R ule of C ri m i nal Proced u re has been vi ol at ed does not , h ow ever , ans w erthe ques t i on of w h a t th e re m e d y is fo r th e v io latio n . W e c h t h a s m o v e d toR ul e 41( d) has s i nce be en amended. 4 25 di s m i s s the i ndi ctm ent
. I ns of aras the mot i on i s bas ed on an al l eged vi ol at i on of

the D oubl e J eopar dy C l aus e ca us ed by a retri al , w e w i l l add res s that argum ent s ho rt l y. B ut w e m ustfi rs t r ej ectW echt ’ s cont ent i on t hatthe i ndi ctm entm us tbe di s m i s s ed m er el y beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed R ul e 26. 3. “The f eder al cr i m i nal rul es ar e notcons t i tut i onal i mper a t i ve s . . . . The y a r e p r oc e du r a l onl y. ” U ni t ed Stat es ex r el

. G augl erv. B r i er l ey , 4 7 7 F .2 d 5 1 6 , 5 2 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 3 ). W e r eaf f i r m ed thi s pr i nci pl e a yearlat eri n U n itedS ta tes v . H

a ll , 505 F. 2d 961 (3d C i r . 1974) , i n w hi ch w e hel d thata vi ol at i on of Feder al R ul e of

C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 4 1(d) , w hi ch mandat ed that the o ffi ce r ex ec u ti n g a se arc h w arran t pro p erly inv en tory the pr operty t aken, di d notaut om at i cal l y r es ul ti n the 4 s u p p re s s io n o f t h a t p ro p e rt y a s e v id e n c e . 5 0 5 F .2 d a t 9 6 3 . W e ex p lai n ed that the irreg u lari ty in the o ffi ce r’s i n v en tory p ro c e d u re in th a t ca se w a s “ n o t ‘ c o n stitu tio n a lly sig n ifica n t’ underthe Four th A m endment

. ” I d. A l though R ul e 41( d) “out l i nes de t ai l ed pr ocedur es , i tdoes notexpr es s l y addr es s the rem edies , i f any, w hich f l ow fr om a fai lure t o ad here t o those pr ocedur es . ” I

d. “[ W ] e do notbe l i eve thati tw as i nt ended that every vi ol at i on of

the pr ocedur es i n the rul e, how ever i ns i gni f i cantand how everl acki ng i n c ons equenc es , s houl d gi ve r i s e t o t he r emedy of

s uppr es s i on. ” I

d. at964. L i ke R ul e 41( d) , R ul e 26. 3 cont ai ns no t extual i ndi cat i on of w hatt he r emedy f

orany vi ol at i on shoul d be. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B er r oa , 3 7 4 F .3 d 1 0 5 3 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f orthe El eventh C i r cui tdi s cus s ed thi s pr eci s e ques t i on andT h e a n a ly sis is d iffe re n t w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t co n se n ts to 5 a m is tr ia l. See Love v. Mor t on , 1 1 2 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 (3d C ir

. 1997)

. A tor al ar gum entthe G overnm entconce ded thatW echt 26 a c k n o w le d g e d th a t it w a s th e fi rs t c o u rt o f a p p e a ls to d o s o . I d. at1056. D es pi t e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s vi ol at i on of R ul e 26. 3, the courtof appeal s found thatthe R ul e “i s notdes i gned t o change t he subs t ant i ve l aw governi ng m i s tr i al s . ” I d. ( qu ot i ng 1993 A dvi s ory Com m i t t ee N ot es )

. I tthen hel d thata vi ol at i on of the R u le “is on e fa ctor to b e c o n side red in d eterm ining w h ethe r a trial ju d g e e x e rc ise d so u n d d isc re tio n ” in d e c lar in g a m istria l. I d. a t 1 0 5 8 -5 9 . N o tab ly , the c o u rt d e c lin e d to h o ld th a t a v io latio n o f th e R u le r e q u ire s d ism iss a l o f th e in d ictm e n t to avoi d a vi ol at i on of

the D oubl e J eopar dy C l aus e. W e agr ee that a vi ol at i on o f R ul e 26. 3 does notal w ays m ean thata mi s tr i al w as decl ar ed i m pr oper l y as a mat t erof cons t i tut i onal l aw , and a c c o rd in g ly h o ld th a t th e re m e d y fo r a v io latio n o f R u le 2 6 .3 is n o t au to m a tica lly th e d ism iss a l o f th e in d ictm e n t. W e th u s p ro c e e d to e x p lo re th e m a in iss u e rais e d in th is app eal : w hether , un der the sub st anti ve law go verni ng m i stri al s, the i ndi ctm entagai ns tW echtm us tbe di s m i s s ed becaus e the D is tr ic t C o u rt im p ro p e rl y d e c la re d a m is tr ia l. See R i vera , 384 F
. 3 d at 5 4
. “[I] t has lon g b ee n h eld th at th e d ec larati o n o f a m istri al su a sp o n te by a tri al co u rtd o es n o t auto m ati ca ll y b ar a f utur e tr i al f

orthe s ame of

f ens e. ” C r aw

f or d v. Fenton , 646 F
. 2d 8 1 0 , 8 1 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). T h e D o u b le J e o p a rd y C lau se p e rm its r etr i al f ol l ow i ng a m i s tr i al w hen, “t aki ng al l t he ci r cumst ance s i nt o cons i der at i on, ther e i s a m ani f es tnece s s i ty f

orthe [ m i s tr i al ]
. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 22 U
. S. ( 9 W heat

. ) 579, 580 ( 1824)

. “ T he ques t i on of w hether‘ m ani f

es tnece s s i ty’ exi s t ed 5d id n o t co n se n t to th e m istria l in th is c a se , so w e p ro c e e d o n ly un der the “m anif

estnecessi ty” an al ysi s.

27 i n the ca s e bef

or e us i s a mi xed ques t i on of l aw an d f actover w hi ch w e exe r ci s e pl enary r evi ew . ” R i vera , 3 8 4 F
. 3 d a t5 5
. At the s ame t i m e, w here a mi s tr i al i s “pr emi s ed upon the tr i al j udge’ s bel i ef

thatthe jur y i s unabl e t o r eac h a ver di ct , l ong cons i der ed the cl as s i c bas i s f ora pr opermi s tr i al [ , ]
. . . [ t ] he tr i al jud g e’s d ec isi o n to d ec lare a m istri al w h en h e co n side rs th e jury deadl ocked i s . . . accor ded gr eatdef er ence by a r evi ew i ng court
. ” W

as hi ngt on , 434 U
. S. at509- 510. “The r e al i t i es of

l i t i gat i on pr ecl ude a pr eci s e def i ni t i on of
‘ m ani f es tnece s s i ty’
. ” R i vera , 384 F. 3d at55. Fact s t hatm i ght demonstr at e mani f

e s tne ces s i ty i ncl ude a hope l es s l y deadl ocked j ury, j uror bi as, an d the u nav ai l abil i ty o f a pr osecuti on w i tness. I d. at5 5-56, 57. T he Supr eme C our thas m ade i tcl earthat a pp e l l a t e s c rut i ny de c r e a s e s w he n the mi s tr i a l i s ba s e d on a dead l ock ed jury, rather than the ab sence o f a w i tness: “[ T ] he s t ri ct es ts crut i ny i s appr opr i at e w hen the bas i s f orthe mis t ri al i s the unava i l abi l i ty of c ritica l p ro se c u tio n e v id e n c e , o r w h e n th e re is r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe pr os ecut ori s us i ng the su p e rio r re so u rc e s o f th e S tate to h a ra ss o r to achi eve a t act i cal advant age ove rthe ac cus ed.

. . . A tthe otherextr eme i s the mi s tr i al pr emi s ed upon th e trial ju d g e ’s b e lief th a t th e ju ry is u n a b le to28 re a c h a v e rd ict, lo n g c o n sid e re d th e c las sic b a sis for a p ro p er m istri al. T h e a rgu m en t th at a jury ’s i nabi l i ty t o agr ee e s t abl i s hes r eas onabl e doubtas t o the def

endant ’ s gui l t , and ther ef or e r equi r es a c q u itt a l, ha s b e e n u n ifo rm ly re jec ted in th is c o u n try . In ste a d , w ith o u t ex c e p tio n , the c o u rts have he l d thatthe tr i al judge m ay di s char ge a genui nel y deadl ocked j ury a nd r equi r e the d e fe n d a n t to su b m it to a se c o n d trial. T h is ru le acc or ds r ecogni t i on t o s oci ety’ s i nt er es ti n gi vi ng th e p ro se c u tio n o n e c o m p lete o p p o rtu n ity to con victtho se w ho hav e viol at ed it s l aw s. M o re o v e r, in th is s itu a tio n th e re a re e sp e c ially c o m p e lli n g re a so n s fo r allo w in g th e trial ju d g e to exer ci s e br oad di s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hetheror not‘ m ani f

es tneces s i ty’ j us t i f

i es a di s char ge of the j ury. O n the one ha nd, i f he d i scha r ges the ju ry w h e n fu rth e r d e li b era tio n s m a y p ro d u c e a fa ir ver di ct , the def

endanti s depr i ved of hi s ‘ val ued r i ghtt o ha ve hi s tr i al c om pl et ed by a par t i cul ar tr i bunal

. ’ B uti f

he f ai l s t o di s char ge a j ury w hi ch i s un abl e t o r eac h a ver di ctaf t erpr otr act ed and exhaus t i ng de l i ber at i ons , ther e exi s t s a s i gni f i cant r i s k thata ver di ctm ay r es ul tf r om pr es s ur es i nher enti n the s i tuat i on ra thert han the cons i der ed j udgm entof

al l the j ur or s . I f r etr i al of the d e fe n d a n t w e re b a rre d w h e n e v e r a n a p p e lla te courtvi ew s the ‘ nece s s i ty’ f or a mi s tr i al di f f er ent l y f r om the tr i al j udge, the r e w oul d be a dangerthatthe l att er , cogni zantof the s er i ousT he di f f er ence i n def

er ence dependi ng on the r eas on f or 6 m istria l sh o w s w h y W e c h t sh o u ld n o t an a lo g ize h is c a se e n tirely t o our dec i s i on i n R i vera . A l though i tart i cul at es bi ndi ng l egal p ri n c ip le s , R i vera is b a se d o n fa c ts b e a rin g littl e re se m b lan c e to thos e i n thi s cas e. T her e, the di s tr i ctco urtdecl ar ed a mi s tr i al b e c a u se o f fre q u e n t d e lay s, in ter ru p tio n s, a n d ju ro r in a c tiv ity occa s i oned by the unavai l abi l i ty of the G overnm ent ’s key w i tnes s due t o a l eg i nj ury. W e h el d t hatthe mi s tr i al w as im p ro p e rly d e c lar e d , em p h a siz in g th a t “[w ]ha t m a k e s th is decl ar at i on . . . part i cul ar l y tr oubl i ng i s t hati tw as due t o the abs ence of

a pr os ecut i on w i tnes s . ” 384 F. 3d at57.

29 s oci et al cons equenc es of a n err oneous rul i ng, w oul d empl oy coerci ve means t o br eak the a p p a re n t d e a d lo c k . S u c h a ru le w o u ld fru s tra te th e p u b lic in te re s t in ju s t ju d g m e n ts .” W as hi ngt on , 4 3 4 U .S . at 5 0 8 -1 0
. In o th e r w o rd s , w h ile 6 ma n i f e s tn e c e s s i ty i s u l t i ma t e l y a l e g a l i s s u e o v e rwh i c h we exer ci s e pl enary r evi ew , w e ac cor d cons i der abl e def er ence t o a d istri ct co u rt ’s j u d g m en t as to th e ex ist en ce of a d ea d lock ed jury th a t m a n ife stly n e c e ss itate s a m istria l. H er e, the s t at ed r eas on f or m i s tr i al w as a dea dl ocked ju ry ; w e th e re fo re tu rn to th e re c o rd to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it s uppor t s t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s co ncl us i on thatthe j ury w as ho peles sl y d eadlocked

. A l tho ug h the que st i on of m anif est n e c e s s ity “ a b

ju re s th e a p p lic a tio n o f a n y m e c h a n ic a l f o rm u la ,” Illino is v . So m e rv ill e , 410 U
. S. 458, 462 ( 1973) , the f ol l ow i ng non- exhaus t i ve, f

act
- i nt ens i ve f

act or s ai d ourappel l at e r evi ew30 of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of m ani f es tneces s i ty i n the con t ext of

dead l ock ed jur i es:

“ 1
. a tim e ly o b

jec tio n b y th e d e fe n d a n t; 2. the j ury’ s col l ect i ve opi ni on thati tcannot agr ee; 3. the lengt h o f j ury deli berat i on s; 4
. th e len g th o f th e trial; 5
. th e c o m p lex ity o f th e iss u e s p re se n ted to the j ury; 6. any pr opercomm uni cat i ons betw een the j udge and j ury; 7. the ef

f ect s of e xhaus t i on a nd the i m pactof coer ci on of

fur therdel i ber at i ons on the ju ry [;] 8. w hetherthe courtp rovi ded couns el an oppor tuni ty t o be hea r d; 9. w hetherthe courtcons i der ed al t ernat i ves t o a mi s tr i al ; and 10. w hether the court ’ s deci s i on w as m ade a ft e r a d e q u a te re fl e c tio n .”31 C o m m e n t 9 .0 6 (f

a c to rs o n e th ro u g h se v e n ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B yrs ki , 854 F. 2d 955, 961 ( 7th C i r . 1988) ( f act or s one thr ough se v e n ); Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 4 2 6 F
. 3 d 3 2 , 3 6 -37 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (fa c to rs e ig h t th ro u g h ten ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. R a zm ilo v ic , 507 F. 3d 130, 137- 39 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( al l t en fa c tors). A g ain, ou r enu m era ti o n of th ese factors i s m ea n t to gui de di s tr i ctcourt s and ourappel l at e r evi ew i n a cl earf as hi on; w e d o n o t m e a n to su g g e st th a t all fa c to rs a re re lev a n t in a ll cas es orthats om e otherappr opr i at e cons i der at i on m i ghtnot ani m at e a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on. W e a d d ress e ac h fac tor i n turn , b eg inn ing w ith fac tors eigh t th rou g h ten b ec au se th ey foc u s o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s p ro c e d u re s (a n d h e n c e so u n d d isc re tio n ) in re n d e rin g its d e c isio n a n d im p a c t th e d e g re e o f d e fe re n c e w e o th e rw ise w o u ld ac co rd u n d er W

as hi ngt on . W e not e pr el i m i nar i l y thatf act or e ig h t m irro rs R u le 2 6 .3 , a n d w e e q u a te th e m fo r p u rp o se s o f th is d iscu ssion

. N ex t, w e a lr ea d y h av e stat ed tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt fel l s ho rtof the i deal w i th res pect t o it s deci si on m aking process; notonl y di d i ti gnor e C om m ent9. 06, i tal s o vi ol at ed R ul e 26. 3. B u t w e h a v e a lso h e ld th a t th e se fa ilu re s d o n o t au to m a tica lly r es ul ti n t he r emedy of

di s m i s s al of

the i ndi ctm ent
. I n B er r oa , the El eventh C i r cui texpl ai ned: “A l though R ul e 26. 3 now m andat es thatw hi ch w a s p re v io u sly stro n g ly a d v ise d , the fa ilu re to hearf r om the part i es has i nvar i abl y been a f act or t o b e con si dered w hen app l ying t he m anifest nece s s i t y t es t
. C ons i s t entw i th the adopt i on of R ul e 26. 3, a tr i al court ’ s f ai l ure t o hearf

r om the part i es r emai ns as on e of s ever al f

act or s t o be32 co n side red in d eterm ining w h ethe r the tr ial co u rt exer ci s ed s ound di s cr et i on. C ons i s t entw i th the m a n ife st n e c e ss ity tes t, th e e x ten t to w h ich a R u le 26. 3 vi ol at i on i ndi cat es a l ack of sound di s cr et i on m us tbe cons i der ed and r es ol ved base d upon the i ndi vi dual a nd va ryi ng c i r cumst ance s of ea ch ca se. A s R u le 2 6
. 3 m an d ates tha t a tri al co u rt pr ovi de the par t i es an opportuni ty t o be hear d, the failure to c o m p ly w ith that m an d ate n ec essa rily c re a tes a str o n g su g g e stio n th a t a tria l ju d g e d id n o t e x e rc is e s o u n d d is c re tio n .” 3 7 4 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 8 ; see al so R i vera , 3 84 F. 3d at56 ( “[ t ] he d ialo g u e fo ste re d b y R u le 2 6 .3 e n su re s th a t o n ly th o se m istria ls th a t a re tr u ly n e c e ss a ry a re u lti m a tely g ra n ted ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B at es , 9 1 7 F
. 2 d 3 8 8 , 3 9 6 (9 th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ) (“tr ial co u rt s are m uch m or e l i kel y t o ha ve exer ci s ed s ound di s cr et i on w hen they li sten to the p arti es b efo re d ec lari n g a m istri al”). T oday w e hol d, i n acc or dance w i th ours i s t erci r cui t , that a v i o l a t i o n o f

R u l e 2 6
. 3 l e s s e n s th e d e g r e e o f d e f e r e n c e we acc or d t o a di s tr i ctc our t ’ s f i ndi ng of m ani f es tnece s s i ty. U nder W as hi ngt on , w e gene r al l y gi ve t he hi ghes tdegr ee of def er ence to a d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t th a t a d e a d lo c k e d ju ry m a n ife stly nece s s i t at es a mi s tr i al

. 434 U
. S. at508- 10. B ut“the def er ence acc or de d the tr i a l j ud ge ’ s f i nd i ng of

mani f e s tne c e s s i ty c an di s appea r , even i n the cl as s i c ca s e of a hung j ury, w hen the tr i al j udge has note xer ci s ed s ound di s cr et i on. ” B er r oa , 374 F. 3d at 1057 ( ci t i ng W

as hi ngt on , 434 U
. S
. at510 n. 28)

. E xact l y how m u ch d efe ren ce is l esse n ed is n o t an e x ac t sci en ce : w e sti ll are m uch more l i kel y t o s us t ai n a m i s tr i al decl ar at i on bas ed on a33 genui nel y deadl ocked j ury than on any otherbas i s , butour r evi ew w i l l be s om ew hatm or e r i gor ous w hen w e per cei ve pr ocedur al f

l aw s i n a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on. O urdef er ence t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of m an if est n ec essity in th is ca se is furthe r de cre ase d b y fac tors ni ne and t en – w hetherthe courtcons i der ed alt ernat i ves t o a m istria l an d w h e th e r it m a d e its d e c isio n a fte r a d e q u a te re fl e c tio n . See Bat es , 917 F. 2d at3 96 (“ A tr i al court ’ s abrupt decl ar at i on of

a mi s tr i al s ugges t s thati tf ai l ed t o exer ci s e s ound di s cr et i on. ”)

. A l though the D i s tr i ctCourtga ve I ns truct i on 9. 05 as an al t ernat i ve t o m i s tr i al on A pr i l 3, 2008, i tdi d notcons i der w hetheri tm i gh tb e frui t f ul t o gi ve i toranothers uppl ement al in stru c tio n a g a in o n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 . W e a c k n o w led g e th a t itis pos s i bl e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm i ghth ave consi der ed a lte rn a tiv e s o r g iv e n a d d iti o n a l re fle c tio n to th e m a tter in its su b jec tiv e m in d . B u t w e d e c lin e to c re d it th e se p riv a te th o u g h ts – as s um i ng ar guendo thatthey exi s t ed – underfa ct or s ni ne and t en of ourr evi ew w hen they do notmani f es tthemsel ves on the re c o rd

. See i d. a t395 ( “D et erm i ni ng thata m i s tr i al w as pr oper and r etr i al perm i s s i bl e bec aus e r ever s al w as cer t ai n i s an o b jec tiv e , n o t su b

jec tiv e , inq u iry to b e b a se d o n th e re c o rd a s it ex ist ed at th e ti m e o f th e m istri al. ”). Som e l os s of

def er ence due t o di s tr i ctcourtpr ocedur es i ndi cat i ve of

a l ack of

s ound di s cr et i on, how ever , does not n ec essa ri ly m ea n tha t th ere w as n o m an if est n ec essity to d ec lare a m is tr ia l a s a m a tte r o f s u b s ta n tiv e f a c t. S e e Br o wn , 426 F. 3d at37 (“ T he over ar chi ng ques t i on on appea l i s w hetherthe d istric t ju d g e ’s d e c lar a tio n o f a m istria l w a s [m a n ife st]ly nece s s ary underal l the ci r cumst ance s . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on34 m arks om i t t ed) )

. A s w e pr evi ew ed i n t he j ur i s di ct i onal s ect i on o f t h is o p in io n , s ee II , supra , our s t andar d of r evi ew i s i m pact ed by a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s exer ci s e of s ound di s cr et i on. A di s tr i ct courts t i l l coul d have c om e t o a corr ectconcl us i on bas ed on the r ecor d f act s ; w e s i m pl y el evat e o ur appel l at e s crut i ny w hen a di s tr i ctcourtvi olat es R ul e 26. 3 orm akes others i gni f i cant pr ocedur al err or s i n r eac hi ng thatconcl us i on. T hi s i s pr eci s el y w hathappene d i n B er r oa . T here , the def endantappeal ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s al l egedl y i m pr oper decl ar at i on of

a mi s tr i al unde rpr ocedur al ci r cumst ance s s i m i l ar t o the ca s e atbar

. T he def endantw as tr i ed on var i ous drug, f i r earm , and cons pi r acy c har ges . 374 F. 3d at1055. A f t era day o r so o f de li b era tio n s, the ju ry se n t a no te t o the d istri ct co u rt stat ing : “W e h av e ag ree d on som e co u n ts. H o w ev e r, w e a re unabl e t o com e t o a dec i s i on on other s . ” I d. A tthatpoi nt ( M a y 2 9th) , the di s tr i c tc ou rtc on s ul t e d c ou ns e l f ora l l pa r t i es and then gave a modi f

i ed A l l en charge (a ki n t o ourI ns truct i on 9 .0 5 ), a n d th e ju ry c o n tin u e d its d e lib e ra tio n s . I d. A day l at er ( M ay 30th) , the j ury i nf or m ed the court : “W e aga i n have made s om e dec i s i ons . H ow everw e ca n not[ s i c] co m e t o an agr eementon other s . ” I d. T he di s tr i ctcourtdecl ar ed a m i s tr i al on eac h of

the undec i ded count s , w i thoutpr ovi ding the part i es an addi t i onal oppor tuni ty t o comm entorr ecom m end a lte rn a tiv e s , a s re q u ir e d b y R u le 2 6 .3
. I d. I n anal yzi ng w hetherthi s pr ocedur al hi s t ory exhi bi t ed m ani f e s tne c e s s i ty f

ora mi s tr i a l , the Cour tof A pp e a l s f

orthe E l eventh C i r cui ts t at ed:35 “[ T ] he eve nt s l eadi ng t o the dec i s i on t o decl ar e a m i s tr i al w er e notr api d, a nd w e ca nnots ay thatthe tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on w as pr eci pi t ous . W i thout di s put e, af

t err ece i vi ng the j ury’ s not e on the af t ernoon of

M ay 30 dec l ar i ng thati tcoul d not agr ee on s om e count s , the di s tr i ctcourtconvene d couns el and t he j ury, t ook the ver di ctand i m m edi at el y decl ar ed a mi s tri al as t o the other co un t s . Si gn i f

i c a nt l y, be f

or e de c l a r i ng the m i s tr i al , the di s tr i ctcourtcons ul t ed nei therthe d e fe n se a tto rn e y s n o r th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e e v en ts of the a ft ern o o n o f M ay 3 0 , h o w ev er, do notst and i n i s ol at i on. T he j ury’ s not e on that d ate w as the secon d such no t e f rom the j ury. In r es pons e t o the fi rs tnot e, s enton M ay 29, the c ou r tga ve the j ury a modi f i ed A l l en char ge. A d d iti o n a lly , th e s e c o n d n o te w a s n o t se n t sh o rtly after th e jury b eg an d eli b era ti o n s, b u t on the th ir d day of del i ber at i ons and the day a f t err ece i vi ng the modi f

i ed A l l en charge. C on si dered as a w h o le, the c ir cu m stan ce s re v ea l th at th e c o u rt ’s decis i on w as not an abrupt, preci pit ou s r espon se to a s in g le n o te fro m th e ju ry , b u t w a s a d e lib e ra te deci s i on m ade s ubs equentt o thr ee da ys of d e lib e ra tio n s, a p rio r n o te d e c lar in g a n in a b ili ty to agr ee, and the j ury’ s pr i orr ece i ptof a modi f i ed A l l en char ge.

. . .36 O n b a lan c e , w e fin d th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fa ilin g to c o n su lt w ith th e p a rties p rio r to decl ar i ng a mi s tr i al af t err ece i vi ng the sec ond not e f r om t he j ury s t at i ng i t s i nab i l i t y t o r eac h a d ec isi o n . W h il e this erro r w eig h s in fa v o r of a f i ndi ng thatthe tr i al j udge di d notexer ci s e s ound di s cr et i on, the r emai nderof the r ecor d i s t o the contr ary. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd t hatt he t r i al j udge exer ci s ed s ou nddi s c r et i on and def ert o hi s f i ndi ng o f m a n if e s t n e c e s s ity to d e c la re a m is tr ia l.” I d. at1059- 60. T he f

act s r el evantt o m ani f

es tnece s s i ty i n our c a se – tw o ju ry n o tes , th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n su ltatio n w ith couns el af

t erthe f i r s tj ury not e butvi ol at i on of R ul e 26. 3 af

t er th e se c o n d ju ry n o te – p a ra llel B er r oa alm os texac t l y. T h e re fo re , o u r o w n a n a ly sis o f m a n ife st n e c e ss ity a p p ro p ria tely conf or m s w i th B er r oa ’s
. R e tu rn in g , the n , to th e C o m m e n t 9 .0 6 fa c to rs th a t aid in ou r appel l at e revi ew of a di stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng of m anif est n e c e ss ity , w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t th e first fa c to r – a tim e ly obj ect i on by t he def

endant– carr i es m uch w ei gh tin thi s cas e. O n t he one hand, i tw as W echtw ho ar gued r athervi gor ous l y f or a m i st ri al on A pr i l 4, 2008, expl ai ni ng thathi s w r i t t en mot i on w as f i l ed “i n l i ghtof

the j ury’ s unqual i f

i ed i ndi vi dual decl ar at i ons thatt hey ar e hopel es s l y deadl ocked a nd thatf ur ther del i ber at i ons w oul d notl ead t o unani m ous ver di ct s . ” O n the o ther h an d , w e h av e a lr ea d y ex p lai n ed w h y the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o u rse o f a c tio n o n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 , ren d e re d d iffic u lt th e a b ili ty of defense cou nsel t o o bjectatthat t i m e. H ence, the fi rs tE ven mor e a c c ur a t e l y, w e ha ve thr e e s uc h n ot e s . T he 7 j ury’ s M ar ch 27, 2008 not e, t hough phra s ed as a ques t i on about hung j ur i es , a l r eady hi nt ed atthe emer gence of an i m pas s e. For th e s a k e o f c lar ity , h o w e v e r, th e re m a in d e r o f th e d isc u ss io n in the p ri ncipal t ext w i l l ref er t o the A pri l 3 , 20 08 no t e as the fi rs t not e and the A pr i l 7 ( or8) , 2008 not e as the s econd not e. 37 “ m a n ife st n e c e ss ity ” fa c to r o f w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t ti m e ly o b jec ted d o e s n o t w e ig h in fa v o r o f o r a g a in st a m istria l. W hatcarr i es f

arm or e w ei ghti n thi s case i s the s econd f act or : the j ury’ s c ol l ect i ve opi ni on thati tc annota gr ee. H er e, w e hav e tw o no t e s e xp r e s s i ng j ury de a dl oc k. The f i r s tn ot e – 7 and W echt ’ s m ot i on of

A pr i l 4, 2008 conf

i r m s thi s i nt erpr et at i on – cl ear l y expr es s es thatthe j ury w as hopel es s l y deadl ocked a nd thatno addi t i onal del i ber at i ons w oul d hel p the j ury r eac h a u n a n im o u s v e rd ic t o n a n y o f t h e c o u n ts
. See Byrs ki , 854 F. 2d at962 ( ear l i erd et erm i nat i on by di s tr i ctcourtthataddi t i onal del i ber at i ons w oul d be hel pf ul “does not , how ever , expunge the r ecor d of al l pri orevi dence of

deadl ock, ” w hen pr i ornot es s ent by j ury i ndi cat ed dea dl ock)

. W echtar gues on appea l thatthe s econd not e expr es s i ng j ury deadl ock detr act s f r om , r atherthan r eaf f i r m s , the f

i r s tnot e. W e di s agr ee. I n thi s r egar d, W echtar gues f i r s tthatthe j ury m i ghthave been cl ose t o a v erdi ctb ecause the second no t e uses the p hrase
“ e s s e n tia lly d e a d lo c k e d ” ra th e r t h a n “ h o p e le s s ly d e a d lo c k e d .” H o w ev er, w e a re u n w il li n g to h o ld the jury to W eb ster’s D i ct i onary’ s pr eci s e def i nit i on of

adverbs and ther eby r ead a m at er i al di s t i nct i on be tw een “es s ent i al l y” and “hope l es s l y, ” or m or e s peci f

i cal l y, that “es senti al l y d eadlocked ” m i ghts om ehowW e f ur thernot e t hatW echthi m s el f had obj ect ed 8 vi gor ous l y t o a part i al ver di cti ns truct i on on A pr i l 3 and 4, 2008. 38 in d ic a te a n im m in e n t b re a k in th e d e a d lo c k

. See U ni t ed Stat es v . V a ise ta , 3 3 3 F
. 3 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 9 (7th C ir. 20 0 3 ) (de fen d an t’ s “ ‘m ig h t h a v e ’ a rg u m e n t, w ith o u t an y e v id e n c e th a t h is rig h ts a n d in ter e sts w e re c o m p ro m ise d b y the d e c lar a tio n o f a m istria l, cannotpr evai l agai ns tthe s peci f i c f act s and ci r cumst ances of th i s c a s e ” )

. W e th u s d o u b tth a tth e j u ry i n t e n d e d t o wa t e rd o wn i t s expr es s i on of

deadl ock by us i ng a di f f erentad verb i n the s econd i ns t ance . I ns t ead, any cl earm ovementt ow ar d a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict b e tw e e n th e tw o n o tes is p e rc e p tib le o n ly if o n e re ad s the sec o n d n o te i n a h igh ly co u n teri n tuit ive m an n er. Second, W echtar gues t hatthe se cond not e s t at es thatthe j ury w as unabl e t o r eac h a ver di ct“o n al l 41 count s , ” w hi ch i m pl i es thati tcoul d r eac h orw as cl os e t o re achi ng a ver di cton s om e s ubs etof thos e count s . W e bel i eve thatthe l i kel i hood of thi s m i s under s t andi ng i s l ow . T he D i s tr i ctC ou rt ’s M ar ch 27, 2008 r es pons e t o t he j ury, w hi ch st at ed t hatt he i nabi l i ty t o r eac h a unani m ous ver di cton onl y s om e of the count s does not cons t i tut e a hung j ury, s houl d have c l ear ed up any c onf us i on, es peci al l y i n l i ghtof the C our t ’ s abundant l y cl earpart i al ver di ct i ns truct i on on M ar ch 17, 2008. E ven as s um i ng ar guendo that 8 any conf us i on l i nger ed, w e si m pl y do notagr ee thati toff s et s the j ury’ s r epea t ed expr es s i on of genui ne dea dl ock. W e m o v e o n , then , to the thir d thro u g h fi fth fac tors deal i ng w i th t he l ength and compl exi ty of tr i al and l eng t h of d eli b era ti o n s, n o ti n g p reli m inaril y that “[t ] h ere is no u n if o rm m i ni m um per i od dur i ng w hi ch a j ury m us tdel i ber at e bef or e theW e cont ras tourcas e, f orexampl e, w i th the Second 9 C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n R a zm ilo v ic , i n whi c h the c ou r tba rr ed re trial. T h e re , the d istric t co u rt d e c id e d “ th a t a sin g le ju ry n o te i ndi cat i ng deadl ock cr eat ed a ‘ m ani f es tnece s s i ty’ t o decl ar e a m i s tr i al

. ” 507 F
. 3d at133. A l s o, the j ury had del i ber at ed f or on l y thr ee days aft er a si x-w eek t ri al i nv olvi ng three defenda nts , tw e n ty -o n e s e p a ra te c o u n ts , a n d fo rt y w itn e s s e s . I d. at139. T h e re w a s a ls o n o in d iv id u a l p o llin g o f j u ro rs . I d. B y stark contr as t , the D i s tr i ctC our ther e r ece i ved tw o j ury not es , pol l ed the j ur or s i ndi vi dual l y af t erthe f i r s t , and gave them Ins truct i on 9
. 0 5 after nin e d ay s o f de li b era ti o n o v er o n e d efe n d an t aft er a s i x- w eek tr i al

. T her e w as then an addi t i onal hal f

- day of d eli b era ti o n o n A p ri l 7, 2 0 0 8
. T h is co m p let ely d if feren t r ec o rd does notcont ai n f

act s aki n t o t he ones t hatpr om pt ed the Second C i r cui tt o r ever s e i n R a zm ilo v ic
. 39 courtm ay dec l ar e a hung j ury. ” U ni t ed States ex r el

. W

ebb v. C our tof C om m on P l eas , 5 1 6 F
. 2 d 1 0 3 4 , 1 0 4 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 5 ). H ere , th e tr ial l asted for tw en ty-th ree da y s, an d th e jury deli berat ed for a t otal of 54.5 hou rs ov er a peri od of t en d ays. O n th e o n e h an d , the issu es w ere relati v ely c o m p lex in that there w er e f or ty- one count s . O n the otherh and , ther e w as onl y one d e fe n d a n t. See Byrs ki , 854 F. 2d at963 ( “A l though the l ength of the j ury’ s del i ber at i on [ appr oxi m at el y t hi r ty hour s overthi r t een d a y s] w a s n o t ex c e ss iv e c o n sid e rin g th e c o m p lex ity a n d len g th of the t r i al [ s even def

endant s and m ul t i pl e char ges agai ns teac h d e fe n d a n t tr ie d fo r t h ir ty -t w o d a y s o v e r a n e ig h t- w e e k p e ri o d ], neither w as i tso i nsub st anti al as t o castd ou bt on t he co rr ect ness o f th e ju d g e ’s m istria l d e c lar a tio n .”). W e b e liev e th a t, on th is 9 r ec or d, t he a mountof de l i be r a t i on t i me c orr e s po nde d s uff i ci ent l y t o the l ength and compl exi ty of the tr i al , s uch thatA s for the sev en th fa ctor relati n g to the d an g er o f a 10 c o e rc e d v e rd ict, w e n e e d n o t d w e ll o n it. T h e re w a s o b v io u sly 40 thes e f act or s w ei gh i n f

avor of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s f

i ndi ng of m ani f es tnece s s i ty. T he s i xth f

act or– any pr opercomm unicat i ons betw een the ju d g e a n d jury – also w eigh s in fav o r of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s f i ndi ng beca us e the C our ti ndi vi dual l y pol l ed the j ur or s , as ki ng w hetherthey w er e “hope l es s l y deadl ocked, ” and e ach j ur or conf i r m ed w hatthe col l ect i ve not e s t at ed. A l though the t i m i ng o f t h is p o llin g w a s n o t id e a l, s ee II I.B , supra , the D istri ct C o u rt n o n ethe less p erfo rm e d itat a su ffi cien tl y info rm ati v e jun cture t o r evea l thateac h j ur orbel i eved thatf ur therdel i ber at i ons w oul d nothel p hi m i n r eac hi ng a unani m ous ver di ct
. T he i s s uance of

I ns truct i on 9. 05 al s o cons t i tut ed a pr oper comm uni cat i on f

r om the j udge bac k t o the j ury (as w el l as an a ltern a tiv e to m istria l) to g iv e th e ju ry o n e m o re o p p o rtu n ity to re a c h a u n a n im o u s v e rd ic t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Joyne r , 201 F. 3d 61, 83 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ( pr opermi s tr i al decl ar at i on f ol l ow i ng p ro tr a c te d d e lib e ra tio n s , A l l en c h arge, and po l l i ng of j urors , even though def

endant s cl ai m ed thatthey “w er e notgi ven the o p p o rtu n ity to b e h e a rd o n th e iss u e ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Si m

ps on , 94 F. 3d 1373, 1377 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( pr operm i s tr i al decl ar at i on foll o w ing jury ’s re p ea ted e x p ression o f de ad lock an d jury f or eman’ s conf

i r m at i on, even though “the courtdi d notpr ovi de the part i es w i th a hea r i ng on the nec es s i ty of a mis t ri al ”)

. T he c o m m u n ica tio n s b e tw e e n th e D istric t C o u rt an d the ju ro rs b o th i nd i vi dual l y and col l ect i vel y thus but tr es s the conc l us i on that the eve ntual s econd not e expr es s i ng j ury de adl ock r epr es ent ed a genui ne dea dl ock thatcoul d notbe br oken. 10a p o ss ib ili ty tha t th e jur y m ig h t be co e rc e d into a v e rd ict h a d it b ee n sen t bac k for f

u rth er de li b era ti o n s. Y et, the D istri ct C o u rt m ade no f

i ndi ng t o thi s ef

f ecto n t he r ecor d, and w e do not pres um e t o know how exhaus t ed the j ury w as atthe poi ntof m istria l d e c lar a tio n . A g a in , h a d th e D istric t C o u rt m a d e e x p licit f i ndi ngs f oreach f act orunderC om m ent9. 06, w e w oul d be i n a m u c h b e tter p o sitio n to a ss e ss th is fa c to r. N o n e th e les s, a s in B er r oa , the bal ance of

the f act or s , even unde ra l es s def er ent i al st andar d of

r evi ew , w ei gh s tr ongl y i n f avorof the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s f i ndi ng of m ani f es tnece s s i ty. 41 I n s um, the r e c or d a s a w ho l e i n thi s c a s e s up po r t s t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatther e w as “mani f es tnece s s i ty” t o declar e a m i s tr i al w i thoutW echt ’ s cons ent
. A s a r es ul t , the D istric t C o u rt m a y re try W e c h t w ith o u t v io latin g th e D o u b le Jeo p ard y C laus e, an d so it d id n o t err i n d en y ing W ec h t’ s m o tio n to d ism iss th e in d ictm e n t. I V. O u r h o ld in g to d a y th a t th e re is n o c o n s titu tio n a l b a r to r etr yi ng D r. W echtdoes nots t and f orthe pr opos i t i on thathe m us tbe r etr i ed. T hati s a dec i s i on t hat r es t s w i th the G overnm ent
. I ndeed, W echt ’ s pr os ecut i on i s one thatal r eady h a s s p a n n e d m o re th a n th irty m o n th s . It h a s re su lted in num er ous appea l s and emergency m ot i ons t o thi s C our tand, w i th the f

i l i ng of thi s opi ni on, three l engt hy pr ece dent i al op i nions. I f the G overnm entchoos es t o pr ocee d w i th a r etr i al , our v iew is th a t b o th s id e s a n d th e in ter e st o f ju stic e w o u ld b e n e fit42 f r om a r educe d l evel of

r ancori n the court room , fr es h eyes on the cas e, and fe w erfor ays t o t hi s C our tby the part i es , i ncl udi ng i nt erveni ng pa r t i es . T hi s ha s be en a hi ghl y c har ged , l engthy, and compl ex ca s e i nvol vi ng s er i ous cr i m i nal char ges br ought agai ns ta pr om i nentpubl i c f i gur e. T he tr i al j udge has been the r ef e r e e i n a h e a vy w e i gh tf i gh t , a nd , a s we h a ve rul ed, has g e n e ra lly m a d e th e c o rr e c t c a lls , w ith s o m e e x c e p tio n s . W echt II, fo r e x a m p le, n o ted th a t th e D istric t C o u rt in iti a lly fa iled to fo llo w o u r m a n d a te fro m an ea rlier o rd e r. See --- F
. 3 d at --- -, 2008 W L 29403 75 , at *1 n. 1. A nd i n t oday’ s deci s i on, even th o u g h th e re w a s m a n ife st n e c e ss ity to d e c lar e a m istria l in s at i s f act i on of the Fi f th A m endment , the D i s tr i ctC our tr eac hed th a t c o n c lu s io n th ro u g h a h ig h ly fl a w e d s e t o f p ro c e d u re s . See II I.B , supra . T h ere fore , in the ex erc ise o f ou r su p erv isory p o w ers u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 6 , s ee , e. g. , G ov’ tof the Vi r gi n I s lands v. W alker , 2 6 1 F .3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), s ee al s o Li t eky v. U ni t ed Stat es , 510 U
. S. 540, 554 ( 1994) , w e w i l l di r ectthat J udge Schw ab be r el i eved of f ur therdut i es on thi s cas e and that th e C h ief

Ju d g e o f th e D istric t C o u rt a ss ig n a n e w ju d g e to h a n d le a n y fu tu re m a tters in th e c a se in c lu d in g a n y re trial. A l though w e tr ead c aut i ous l y beca us e “[ t ] he deci s i on t o r emove a j udge f r om an ongoi ng tr i al s houl d be cons i der ed s er i ous l y and m ade onl y r ar el y, ” H

uberv. Tayl or , 5 3 2 F
. 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir

. 2008) , thi s cas e has pr ogr es s ed s o unus ual l y as t o becom e s ui g e n e ri s . See , e. g. , Li vi ng D es igns , I nc. v. E

. I

. D upontde Nem ou rs an d Co. , 4 31 F
. 3d 353, 372- 73 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng under28 U
. S. C
. § 2106 that , even a bs ent al l egat i ons of

bi as , becaus e of

t he hi ghl y unus ual pr ocedur es the tr i al j udge empl oyed, “the appe ar ance of j us t i ce r equi r esC ert ai nl y W echtshoul d be pl eas ed w i th our 11 r eas s i gnm entof

the ca s e. N otonl y di d he mov e f orJ udge Schw ab’ s r ecus al ati s s ue i n W e c h t I, he di d s o agai n under § 455 i n the f

or m of a pet i t i on f

orw r i tof

m andamus t o our C our t , w hi ch w e deni ed on J anuary 2, 2008. W echtthen moved f orr ecus al agai n under§ 455 m or e r ece nt l y on A pr i l 21, 2008. J udge Schw ab deni ed the mot i on on M ay 8, 2008. 43 re a ss ig n m e n t o n re m a n d ” ); Sobel v. Yes hi va U

ni v. , 839 F
. 2d 18, 37 ( 2d C i r . 1988) ( concl udi ng “thati ti s nece s s ary t o r emand t he case t o a di f

f er entdi s tr i ctj udge” be caus e courtof appea l s w as “ d istu rb e d b y th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e d istric t co u rt tre a ted th is ca se o n o u r i n it ial rem an d ”). W e thus end thi s chapt eri n t he W echtappel l at e s aga by comi ng f

ul l ci r cl e. I n W

e c h t I, t he i ssue of

w hetherJ udge Schw ab s houl d be r ecus ed f orbi as f i gur ed pr om i nent l y in t he appeal

. I n thatopi ni on ourdi s s ent i ng col l eague concl uded under28 U
. S. C
. § 455 “t hatanot herj udge shoul d pr es i de over the tri al of W ec h t. ” 4 8 4 F
. 3 d a t 23 6 (B ri g h t, J. , d issen ti n g ). 11 A s w e have j us tdesc r i bed, t he pr obl em t oday i s notso much t he a p p e a ra n c e o f b ias a s it is th e a p p e a ra n c e o f liti g a tio n a t a c o m b a tiv e ten o r th a t li k e ly w ill n o t ab a te w e re Ju d g e S c h w a b to s t ay on the ca s e. W e ther ef or e di r ect thata l es s i nves t ed adj udi cat ort ake ove rf

r om her e. V. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l af f i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or derdenyi ng W echt ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tment
. W e no ne the l e s s w i l l exer ci s e ours upervi s ory pow er44 a n d re m a n d th is c a se to th e C h ief Ju d g e o f th e D istric t C o u rt to r eas s i gn the ca s e t o a di f f er entj udge.