Opinion ID: 2719709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instructions and Deliberations

Text: In its final instructions to the jury on Thursday, April 7, the trial court, at Mr. Douglas‟s request, recited a “reasonable efforts” instruction, stating that the jury should “first consider” whether Mr. Douglas was guilty of PWID and whether the amount of marijuana was greater than half a pound, and then, “[i]f after making all reasonable efforts to reach a verdict on possession with intent to distribute and on whether the amount was greater than a half a pound you are not able to do so, then you are allowed to consider possession of a controlled substance.”3 The case went to the jury around lunchtime, and at 4:23 p.m. that day, the jury submitted a note that stated, “We are unable to reach unanimity on the first item, possession with intent to distribute.” After a brief conference with counsel, the court, noting that “I don‟t even think they‟ve made a reasonable effort yet, frankly, at two hours and 50 minutes,” instructed the jury: You have not been deliberating very long at all for a jury considering the trial that you just saw. And so, what I‟m going to instruct you to do now is to break for the evening, go home, get a good night‟s sleep, come back at 9:30 in the morning and make your best efforts to resume your deliberations tomorrow and keep going. At this point it‟s just very early in the process, and I think we should just take a break and start fresh in the morning. 3 See Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.401 (5th ed. rev. 2013). 6 The jury returned to the jury room and sent the judge a note asking, “If we reach a decision tomorrow, will we be coming in on Monday?” The court responded, “If you reach a decision tomorrow you will not come back on Monday,” and excused the jury for the day. On the morning of Friday, April 8, at 10:52 a.m., the jury submitted another note that read, “We are unable to reach a unanimous decision on „possession with intent.‟ Can we proceed to the second count of „possession‟?” After a discussion with counsel about the “reasonable efforts” instruction, the court instructed the jury, “If you have exercised reasonable efforts and are unable to reach a unanimous verdict on possession with intent, you may consider the charge of possession.” Less than an hour later, the jury notified the court that it had reached a unanimous verdict on the lesser marijuana possession charge. At this point, the trial court stated its inclination to order the jury to go back to the greater charge of PWID and keep trying to reach a verdict on that charge. Defense counsel strongly objected to this course, calling it “counterintuitive” and nonsensical to give the jury an anti-deadlock instruction on the PWID count after it had exhausted reasonable efforts to reach unanimity on that count and moved on to the lesser offense. The trial court disagreed: “I see it beneficial to judicial economy to attempt 7 to get a unanimous verdict[.]” In the trial court‟s view, “the case law is clear,” and this court‟s decision in Jackson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1379, in particular, stands for the proposition “that the court has discretion to order additional deliberations after a reasonable efforts instruction has been given and a verdict has been reached on the lesser.” While the court thought it “more prudent” to give Mr. Douglas‟s jury the milder “Gallagher” anti-deadlock instruction,4 it concluded firmly that the law allowed it to order the jury to keep trying to get a verdict on PWID. After the court took the jury‟s verdict on the lesser possession charge—a guilty verdict—it then read the jury a Gallagher instruction and ordered it to go back to deliberating on the greater count.5 The jurors deliberated that afternoon for 4 In Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530, 534 (D.C. 1974) (en banc), we announced the “Winters instruction,” a “highwater mark for an anti-deadlock charge” that trial court judges may use to instruct a deadlocked jury. We noted that judges could, depending on the circumstances, use less emphatic instructions. Id. In a concurrence, Judge Gallagher set forth an alternative milder charge, now known as the “Gallagher instruction.” Id. at 534-39 (Gallagher, J., concurring); see also Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.601 (5th ed. rev. 2013). 5 The court instructed: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your hard work in this case. I understand from previous notes that you sent me that you were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the greater charge in this case, which was possession with intent to distribute marijuana. I want to give you (continued…) 8 roughly another two hours and fifteen minutes. The court dismissed the jurors for the weekend at 4:45 p.m. that day, and when they returned on Monday they (…continued) some further instruction on that charge at this time. Your verdict on that charge must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree to it. Your verdict should be unanimous. You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided if you can conscientiously do so, that you were selected in the same manner and from the same source which any future jury must be. There‟s no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to 12 persons more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, nor to suppose that more or clearer evidence will be produced on one side or the other. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without sacrificing your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and the reasons for your views and to change your opinion, if convinced that it is wrong, but do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight and effect of the evidence because of the opinion of your fellow jurors solely for the purpose of returning a verdict. You are not advocates for either side, you are judges, judges of the facts. Your sole interest should be to reach a just verdict in the evidence in the case. With that instruction I‟m going to instruct you to go back and deliberate on the greater charge at this time. Thank you. 9 deliberated until they found Mr. Douglas guilty of PWID at 2:30 p.m.