Opinion ID: 795271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court's Instructions Following Juror Questioning

Text: 60 After questioning Juror X, the District Court concluded that Juror X was fulfilling his role properly, and gave a brief instruction to the full jury before sending it back to deliberate. Boone argues that this instruction was improper. As Boone did not object at the time, this Court reviews the instruction for plain error. See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir.2001). Under this standard, we will reverse the trial court only where a plain error was `fundamental and highly prejudicial, such that the instructions failed to provide the jury with adequate guidance and our refusal to consider the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice.' Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 424 F.3d 336, 339 (3d Cir.2005) (citation omitted). 6 61 First, Boone objects to the following statement in the District Court's supplemental instruction: 62 If continued discussions might bear fruit as to your areas of disagreement, then, of course, you are permitted to continue those discussions, and are encouraged to do so if further discussions may lead to agreement. And by agreement I also mean agreement either way, either by a minority of jurors changing their views or by a majority of jurors changing their views. 63 According to Boone, this instruction constituted a so-called Allen charge, which this Court has defined as an instruction in which the court direct[s] the minority jurors to reconsider their views in light of their disagreement with the majority. Eastern Med. Billing, Inc., 230 F.3d at 602 n. 1. The Supreme Court upheld such a charge in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-02, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). In Fioravanti, however, this Court, exercising its supervisory power over the district courts, held that the use of an Allen charge in this Circuit would, from that point on, constitute reversible error except in very extraordinary circumstances. Fioravanti, 412 F.2d at 420; see also Eastern Med. Billing, 230 F.3d at 607-08. In Eastern Medical Billing, we held that the trial court had given an impermissible Allen charge where it instructed, in part, as follows: 64 If the greater number of you are for one side, each dissenting juror ought to consider whether his or her view is a reasonable one since it makes no effective impression on the minds of so intelligent fellow jurors who bear the same responsibility . . . Also, the jurors who constitute the greater number should consider the reasons of those who take a different position to see whether there may be persuasive merit in that position. 65 230 F.3d at 605, 613. 66 The District Court's instruction in this case is clearly distinguishable from those we have previously found impermissible. The Court here did not encourage either the minority or the majority jurors to change their view, but simply stated that unanimous agreement could be reached through a change in viewpoint by either group. Cf. Eastern Medical Billing, 230 F.3d at 613 (noting that although the Court mentioned both the majority and minority jurors, the instruction clearly portrayed the minority jurors as holding less intelligent or reasonable views than the majority jurors). The District Court's mere reference here to the minority of jurors did not constitute plain error. 67 Boone also argues that the District Court in its supplemental instruction should not have encouraged further deliberation without asking the jurors if they wished to continue. In fact, the Court encouraged the jury to deliberate only until you reach the point where the jury believes that no further discussions would be fruitful. Thus, the Court clearly informed the jurors that they could stop deliberating when they were at an impasse, and the instruction was not coercive. See United States v. Graham, 758 F.2d 879, 884 (3d Cir.1985) (noting that a judge's `action in requiring further deliberation after the jury has reported a disagreement does not, without more, constitute coercion') (citation omitted). 7