Case Name: Melvin C. JENKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-02-13
Citations: 330 F.2d 220
Docket Number: No. 18032
Parties: Melvin C. JENKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 330
Pages: 220–224

Head Matter:
Melvin C. JENKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18032.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 16, 1963.
Decided Feb. 13, 1964.
Petition for Rehearing en Banc Denied April 3, 1964.
Mr. Robert R. Tiernan, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Jerome H. Heck-man, Washington, D. C., (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. David Epstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and John H. Treanor, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Burger and Wright, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Evidence for the Government showed that Jenkins entered a store and, at gun point, forced an employee to give him the contents of the cash drawer. Testifying in his own behalf, Jenkins denied the robbery, said he could not remember where he was on the day in question, but admitted having been in the store on several occasions. Cross-examination disclosed a criminal record which, of course, went to his credibility. Found guilty by the jury, he appeals.
The principal'claims of error advanced by Jenkins are that the trial judge gave a coercive instruction and improperly commented on the evidence. Significantly, the appellant did not object at the time and protests for the first time on appeal. Regardless of that, we have considered the matter and have concluded that, viewed in the context of the whole charge, the challenged statements of the trial judge do not require reversal.
Affirmed.
The court's statements to the jury did not in any sense purport to be the charge under Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), to which our dissenting colleague applies colorful words such as "dynamite" and "nitroglycerin." They were no more than the judge's response to a jury which reported it was "deadlocked" after only very brief deliberations. We see no basis whatever for characterizing these statements as coercive, especially as the jury did not reconvene and resume its deliberations until the following day.