Opinion ID: 1453347
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Handling of Jury Questions

Text: As previously mentioned, defendant filed two motions for a new trial. The second motion to be discussed, which was actually filed before the motion for a new trial based upon the undisclosed Brady material, challenged the manner in which the district court responded to jury questions concerning unanimity. During deliberations the jury returned the following question, If we cannot reach a unanimous verdict on one of the five counts, what is the effect on the overall outcome of the trial? After discussing possible responses with counsel, the district court indicated to counsel that it was disinclined to accept partial verdicts. It then gave an instruction drawn in part from this circuit's partial verdict pattern instruction. After another hour passed, the jury asked, What do we do with the verdict forms if we are finished deliberating all five counts and unable to reach unanimous agreement on some of the counts? The district court again discussed the matter with counsel and concluded that the jury should be dismissed for the weekend. At that point, defense counsel queried, Are we going to seal what they've completed or what they have? The court replied, The verdicts for which they have reached  apparently some of the verdicts have been reached, and I'll have the jurors place those verdicts in a separate envelope, seal it . . . and we'll retain custody of the verdicts that have already been reached under seal. The court then told the jury the following: What I'm going to do is, my suggestion is that you go home. You've been deliberating for a day and a half, and I think the wise thing to do now is to have you go home this evening, return on Monday, and continue with your deliberations. I'm going to hand you an envelope, I want you to put those verdict forms for which you have reached unanimous verdicts in this envelope, seal it, and when you're done ring for [the courtroom deputy], hand the envelope to [the courtroom deputy]. We are going to hold it in our vault under seal. On Monday, the jury resumed deliberations. Shortly thereafter, it sent the following question to the court: On two counts, we are a hung jury. What do we do at this point? The court asked for the opinions of counsel. For his part, defense counsel requested an Allen charge; the AUSA stated that he had nothing to add. The district court determined that it would accept partial verdicts for the following reasons: [T]his case was relatively short. The evidence was straightforward. The jury deliberated about a day and a half last week. I had received two previous messages indicating that they are having difficulty reaching a verdict on some of the counts, however, they were able to reach verdicts on  we don't know how many, but on a number of counts. I suggested that the jury place those verdicts upon which they were able to reach a unanimous verdict into a sealed envelope. It was placed in the custody of the courtroom deputy, and this morning I recommended that the jury return. And the jury has deliberated approximately an hour an a half this morning. Deliberations began, continued this morning at 9:00 this morning, and at approximately 10:30 the Court received this last message. This is the third time that the jury has looked for guidance from the Court. On all three occasions, it's obvious that the jury is deadlocked on some counts. How many, we don't know, until this morning where it was indicated that they cannot reach verdicts on two of the five counts. Now, I don't know, of the other counts, whether the jury was able to unanimously agree on prior  we'll find out when I unseal the verdicts. I'm not aware whether they have been able to reach a verdict in any of the other counts this morning, but in any event, I think I've given the jury enough opportunity to deliberate. It was a straightforward case. The issues were not difficult or complex. The evidence was straightforward. I'm aware that the jury made several requests to listen to the audiotapes which we admitted into evidence, and the jury again this morning requested to listen to some of the audiotapes. . . . And it was following that that the jury sent the message. So I'm going not going to give the jury an Allen charge. I'm going to accept the partial verdicts. When asked, the jury fore-person noted that it had been unable to reach any further verdicts since ceasing deliberations on Friday afternoon. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b)(2) provides, If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed. Defendant directs us to a case that gives the following gloss to partial verdicts: [T]he trial judge treads a fine line in deciding whether to accept a partial verdict: he must neither pressure the jury to reconsider what it had actually decided nor force the jury to turn a tentative decision into a final one. United States v. Wheeler, 802 F.2d 778, 781 (5th Cir.1986) (citing United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 146-47 (2d Cir. 1981)). Given the delicacy of the decision, we review for abuse of discretion. Id. Although defendant now complains about the district court's handling of the verdicts, not only did he fail to object to the sealing of the verdicts on Friday afternoon, he suggested it. Moreover, on Monday morning he did not request that the sealed verdicts be returned to the jury for further deliberation. In denying the motion for a new trial, the district court cited these considerations: Defendant neither requested a partial verdict instruction at any time during the proceedings, nor requested that the jury receive the sealed verdicts upon the recommencement of deliberations. The Defendant cannot now claim legal error arising from the scenario that he created. Indeed, defense counsel's conduct runs perilously close to an intentionally and impermissible attempt to create error. Mem. Op. and Order, Nov. 11, 2005 at 15, 2005 WL 3059481. We recognize that removal of certain counts from the jury's deliberation without also accepting them as partial verdicts might force the jury to turn a tentative decision into a final one. Wheeler, 802 F.2d at 781; see also United States v. Benedict, 95 F.3d 17, 19 (8th Cir.1996) (admonishing district courts not to intrude on the jury's deliberative process). The district court itself recognized that a different approach would have been preferable: With the benefit of hindsight, instructing the jury regarding the taking of a partial verdict and returning the sealed verdicts to the jury on Monday may have curbed the present proceedings. Mem. Op. at 15. However, simply because alternatives existed does not mean that the district court abused its discretion in following the course of action that it did. Our review of the transcript of jury deliberations gives no indication that the jury itself wished to reconsider the verdicts under seal nor, as mentioned, did defense counsel ask that it be given the opportunity to do so. In fact, the district court polled the jury at the request of defense counsel and its members unanimously affirmed the verdicts. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial.