Opinion ID: 4100154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rereading the Silvern Instruction

Text: Defendants next argue that the district court abused its discretion when it chose to reread the Silvern instruction in‐ stead of declaring a mistrial after the jury indicated that it was unsure if it could reach a verdict. Before deliberating, the jury was read a modified version of the instruction4 this court promulgated in United States v. Silvern, 484 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1973) (en banc). (1986), to the Government’s eventual use of a peremptory strike to remove Juror 24 from the jury.” (Hector Br. 27 n.2.) But Defendants cite no author‐ ity for such a proposition, likely because we have rejected just such an argument. See United States v. Taylor, 509 F.3d 839, 849 (7th Cir. 2007) (“The defendants’ argument rests on pure speculation—they merely suspect that the government would have exercised a peremptory challenge against [the juror] had its challenge for cause been denied. Moreover, Bat‐ son prohibits the use of peremptory challenges in a discriminatory fashion; it does not require a district court to deny challenges for cause with respect to African‐American potential jurors just to guarantee the defendants the opportunity to raise a Batson challenge.”). 4 The instruction, based on Seventh Circuit Pattern Instruction § 7.03, pro‐ vided: You should make every reasonable effort to reach a ver‐ dict. In doing so, you should consult with one another, express your own views, and listen to the opinions of your fellow jurors. Discuss your differences with an open mind. Do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you come to believe it is wrong, but you should not surrender your honest beliefs about the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opin‐ ions of your fellow jurors or for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict. Nos. 12‐3680, 12‐3683, 12‐3747, 13‐1374 & 13‐2321 9 After twenty‐three hours of deliberation, the district court