Source: https://openjurist.org/463/f2d/491
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:03:36+00:00

Document:
William C. Cunningham, S. J., New York City, for appellant.
John T. Sullivan, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Rochester, N. Y. (C. Donald O'Connor, Acting U. S. Atty., for the W. D.N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, HAYS and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
We are asked to reverse a conviction because the trial judge not once, but twice communicated with the jury out of the presence of the defendant (appearing pro se) during the course of the jury's deliberations.
John Theodore Glick, the appellant here, and seven other defendants1 were tried before Judge Burke and a jury on six counts relating to the ransacking of offices in the Federal Building in Rochester, New York, on September 6, 1970.2 Only defendant Gilchrist was represented by counsel.
The district judge thereafter returned to his chambers in the courthouse, where he soon received a second note. To the best of Judge Burke's recollection, this note asked: "Can the jury in its verdict recommend leniency?"5 The judge wrote his one-word answer on the back of the note: "Yes," and returned the note to the jury. None of the defendants nor Gilchrist's counsel was informed of either the first or second series of communications.
Glick now presses his appeal from the conviction and the order denying him a new trial. Since we disagree with Judge Burke's conclusion that Glick's rights "were not prejudiced by the communications," we reverse.
We emphasize at this point, however, that we are not concerned merely with instructions delivered out of the presence of the defendant. The prejudice was compounded here because the volatile instructions on leniency were erroneous. In United States v. Louie Gim Hall, 245 F.2d 338 (2d Cir. 1957), we reversed a conviction where the trial judge, after an inquiry by the jury whether it had the right to recommend leniency, instructed the deadlocked jury that he would be "glad to have that recommendation and you may be sure that it will be acted upon accordingly." Our holding was no more than an application of the familiar rule that a verdict of guilty cannot stand if it has been induced by any intimation from the trial judge that a light sentence might be imposed, thus encouraging a juror to abandon his vote of not guilty. See, e. g., Demetree v. United States, 207 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1953) (jury told that the maximum sentence would not be imposed); Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1948) (jury told that defendant would be eligible for parole after a specified period). In dictum, however, we noted that it would not have been error if the judge merely had instructed the jury that it could recommend leniency and had added that the function of sentencing belonged solely to the judge, that the judge would not be bound by any recommendation from the jury, and that the jury should not concern itself with the question of punishment in arriving at a verdict. But cf. United States v. Davidson, 367 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1966).
But Judge Burke's over-simplistic "yes" response to the jury's inherently dangerous inquiry opened the way to "unlock" the jury. The response ignored all of the admonitions we considered appropriate in Louie Gim Hall. In short, there was a total failure to make clear to the jury that its function was to decide guilt or innocence and that sentencing was the judge's province and his alone. See 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal Sec. 512, at 366-67 (1969). Accordingly, under the circumstances present here, the likelihood existed that "one or more jurors entertaining doubts as to appellants' guilt agreed to vote for conviction because [they believed] they had it in their power to soothe their consciences by causing little or no punishment to be imposed." United States v. Louie Gim Hall, supra, 245 F.2d at 341.
Nor can we say that Judge Burke's instructions "did not affect the verdict." United States v. Schor, supra, 418 F.2d at 30. Wholly apart from the truthfulness of the newspaper report, we are convinced that the verdict was induced at least in part by Judge Burke's answer.13 The jury, which had deliberated for approximately eight hours without reaching a verdict, was able to return a verdict soon after being told unconditionally and unequivocally that it could recommend leniency. Moreover, we have a clear indication that the judge's single-word response made an impact on the jury, for its verdict in fact included the recommendation of leniency on each of the forty-eight findings of guilt. This is not a case, therefore, where supplemental instructions on an issue of law delivered out of the presence of the defendant could be considered harmless because they merely repeated instructions previously given in his presence, United States v. Arriagada, 451 F.2d 487 (4th Cir. 1971), or because the jury had reached a verdict on one count before supplemental instructions were requested and delivered on subsequent counts and the defendant was given concurrent sentences on all counts. United States v. Howard, 433 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 918, 91 S.Ct. 900, 27 L.Ed.2d 819 (1971).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed.
The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules.
There is no question of waiver here. Judge Burke, in placing the communications on the record, stated that the communications "were not with the knowledge nor with the consent of Appellant Glick."
Rule 52(a), F.R.Crim.P.; see, e. g., United States v. Arriagada, 451 F.2d 487 (4th Cir. 1971); United States v. Howard, 433 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 918, 91 S.Ct. 900, 27 L.Ed.2d 819 (1971); United States v. Schor, supra; Ware v. United States, 376 F.2d 717 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Hoffa, 367 F.2d 698, 713 (7th Cir. 1966), vacated on other grounds, 387 U.S. 231, 87 S.Ct. 1583, 18 L.Ed.2d 738 (1967); Rice v. United States, 356 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1966); Walker v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 322 F.2d 434 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 494, 11 L.Ed.2d 421 (1964); ef. United States v. Compagna, 146 F.2d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 1944) (L. Hand, J.), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 867, 65 S.Ct. 912, 89 L.Ed. 1422 (1945): ". . . when it appears with certainty that no harm has been done, it would be the merest pedantry to insist upon procedural regularity."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.