Opinion ID: 2291864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Super.Ct.Crim.R. 23(b) states:

Text: Jury of less than twelve. Juries shall be of twelve (12) but any time before verdict the parties may stipulate in writing with the approval of the Court that the jury shall consist of any number less than twelve (12) or that a valid verdict may be returned by a jury of less than twelve (12) should the Court find it necessary to excuse one or more jurors for any just cause after trial commences. Even absent such stipulation, if the Court finds it necessary to excuse a juror for just cause after the jury has retired to consider its verdict, in the discretion of the Court a valid verdict may be returned by the remaining eleven (11) jurors. The second sentence was added in 1985, making the Superior Court rule identical to its federal counterpart, Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(b), which was similarly amended in 1983. Appellants argue that Rule 23(b) is invalid because it conflicts with D.C.Code § 16-705(c) (1981), [2] which guarantees twelve-person juries absent stipulation by the parties. They cite D.C.Code § 16-701 (1981) [3] as requiring that Superior Court rules be consistent with pertinent statutes. They also claim that Rule 23(b) violates the principle that rules of procedure cannot alter substantive law. The government replies that the rule and section 16-705(c) do not conflict but may be read consistently. If the two do conflict, the government argues, the rule would supersede the statute because D.C.Code § 11-946 (1981) [4] dictates that the Superior Court follow the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (1982) federal rules take precedence over existing, inconsistent statutes. [5] We agree with appellants that Rule 23(b) is invalid because it conflicts with section 16-705(c) and thereby violates section 16-701. We recognize that courts have a duty to reconcile allegedly conflicting statutes and to give effect to both whenever possible. District of Columbia v. Smith, 329 A.2d 128, 130 (D.C.1974); accord, Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 2482-2483, 41 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1974). Assuming arguendo that the same duty exists when a court is faced with a conflict between a statute and a rule, the court need not attempt to reconcile one with the other if doing so would deprive either of its essential meaning. District of Columbia v. Smith, supra, 329 A.2d at 130. The government asks us to read Rule 23(b) and section 16-705(c) consistently by interpreting the latter to require twelve jurors at the empaneling of the jury and at the beginning of deliberations, but not necessarily at the return of the verdict. We find this interpretation strained at best and conclude that it robs the statute of its essential meaning. Under a common-sense reading of section 16-705(c), a jury of twelve means twelve persons who hear the evidence, deliberate, and vote on a verdict  in other words, twelve persons who function as jurors throughout the entire trial from beginning to end. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in Schultz v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 7 Kan.App.2d 500, 502, 644 P.2d 484, 486 (1982), regarded this concept as fundamental; so do we. In this case it is plain to us that the rule and the statute are in direct conflict. Section 16-705(c) guarantees twelve jurors to every defendant, and to the government, unless they both expressly consent to a lesser number. Rule 23(b), on the other hand, empowers the court to allow elevenperson juries even without the consent of the parties. Had such a conflict arisen in federal court between Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(b) and a federal statute, the rule would prevail over the statute because of 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But the situation is different in the District of Columbia courts. D.C.Code § 16-701 demands that all Superior Court rules be consistent with statutes applicable to the business of the court. The second sentence of Rule 23(b) is void because it violates this statutory provision. Contrary to the government's claims, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 does not apply to the Superior Court through D.C.Code § 11-946. The latter statute requires the Superior Court to follow federal rules of procedure, but it does not also impose on the Superior Court the federal policy, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3771, that rules supersede inconsistent statutes. Nor does section 11-946 grant the Superior Court (or this court) the power to overturn any District of Columbia statute by adopting a court rule. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 is expressly limited to rules governing proceedings in the United States District Courts, in the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, and before United States Magistrates. There is no counterpart to 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in the District of Columbia Code that would allow Superior Court rules to nullify or take precedence over District of Columbia statutes. [6] The government asserts that, had the Superior Court not adopted Rule 23(b), it would be bound by D.C.Code § 11-946 to follow Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(b). We reject this argument because its premise is unsound. By deciding not to modify the Federal Rule, the Superior Court did not adopt a rule of its own but merely allowed the Federal Rule to take effect by operation of section 11-946. The result of this decision is that, as a matter of law, Superior Court Rule 23(b) is Federal Rule 23(b), not a conceptually distinguishable rule with identical language. Thus we must decide whether a Federal Rule which, by Act of Congress, becomes a Superior Court rule may supersede an inconsistent provision of the District of Columbia Code. We hold that it may not. Once it becomes a Superior Court rule, it must behave like a Superior Court rule; that is, under section 16-701, it must be consistent with any statute applicable to [the court's] business. Section 16-705(c) is clearly such a statute. Therefore, reading sections 11-946, 16-701, and 16-705(c) together so as to give effect if possible to all three sections, [7] we hold that to the extent they are or may be in conflict, the more specific provisions of sections 16-701 and 16-705(c) limit the broad language of section 11-946. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, as we have said, this court has a duty to construe two statutes which appear to be in conflict so as to give effect to both. However, when a statute of broad general application (such as section 11-946) is inconsistent with a more specific provision (such as section 16-705(c)), the latter provision must govern or control, as a clearer and more definite expression of the legislative will.... 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 347(b) (1953), quoted with approval in District of Columbia v. Linda Pollin Memorial Housing Corp., 313 A.2d 579, 583 (D.C.1973); accord, Martin v. United States, 283 A.2d 448, 450-451 (D.C.1971) (citing authorities). Second, sections 11-946, 16-701, and 16-705(c) were all part of the same congressional enactment, the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970. [8] In such circumstances our duty is all the greater to construe the separate sections harmoniously so that no part of [the Act] will be either redundant or superfluous. Office of People's Counsel v. Public Service Commission, 477 A.2d 1079, 1084 (D.C.1984) (citations omitted). This is a fundamental rule of statutory construction. Tuten v. United States, 440 A.2d 1008, 1010 (D.C.1982), aff'd, 460 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 1412, 75 L.Ed.2d 359 (1983). When this is impossible, however, we must give precedence to the more specific language. However inclusive may be the general language of a statute, it `will not be held to apply to a matter specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment.' Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U.S. 102, 107, 64 S.Ct. 890, 894, 88 L.Ed. 1163 (1944) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., Howard v. Riggs National Bank, 432 A.2d 701, 709 (D.C.1981). [9] The government makes the additional argument that this court has already determined the validity of Rule 23(b). It notes that the Superior Court submitted the proposed amendment of Rule 23(b) to this court for approval, and that this court, by allowing the amendment to go into effect, [10] must have determined that the rule governs the issue of unstipulated dismissal of a juror in Superior Court. The government misunderstands this court's role in the promulgation and adoption of Superior Court rules of procedure. Our function with respect to changes in Superior Court rules is precisely defined and limited by D.C.Code § 11-946. As we made clear in Haynes v. District of Columbia, 503 A.2d 1219, 1223 n. 7 (D.C.1986), our approval of any Superior Court rule means only that this court must give its sanction to any rule which modifies the Federal Rules of Civil [or Criminal] Procedure. Since the 1985 amendment did not modify the Federal Rule but, on the contrary, made the Superior Court rule identical to it, this court could neither approve nor disapprove the amendment. The most we could do was to stay its effectiveness until the Superior Court could decide whether it wished to accept the amendment or to modify it, and that is precisely what we did. We hold, as a matter of statutory construction, that the second sentence of Rule 23(b) is invalid because it conflicts on its face with D.C.Code § 16-705(c), and because D.C.Code § 16-701 requires us to give precedence to the statute. See Haynes v. District of Columbia, supra, 503 A.2d at 1223; Sanker v. United States, 374 A.2d 304, 310 (D.C.1977) (the rule may not override the statute); In re C.A.P., 356 A.2d 335, 343-344, rehearing en banc denied, 359 A.2d 11 (D.C.1976); see also Washington-Southern Navigation Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U.S. 629, 635-636, 44 S.Ct. 220, 222-23, 68 L.Ed. 480 (1924). The judgment of conviction is reversed, and this case is remanded for a new trial consistent with D.C.Code § 16-705(c). REVERSED AND REMANDED.