Opinion ID: 2815635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Partial Verdict

Text: At the end of the trial, the judge instructed the jury on all of the charges in the indictment, as well as on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder while armed of Mr. Brown. The jury then began to deliberate at approximately 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 2011. The jury deliberated throughout the remainder of that day, sending notes to the judge only to request a written copy of the parties’ stipulations, a marker for the whiteboard, and the password for the computer in the jury room. The jury resumed its deliberations on the morning of Thursday, March 17, 2011. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on that second day of deliberations, the jury sent the following note to the judge: Your Honor, for some of the greater offenses, individuals on both sides are very firm in their decision and have expressed that any more continued deliberations would not change their minds based on the evidence before them. We have two questions: (1) At what point are we considered a hung jury? (2) Are we allowed to consider the lesser offenses before making a unanimous decision on the greater offenses? 29 The trial judge discussed the jury’s note with the parties. The prosecutor asked the judge to instruct the jury to continue its deliberations, while appellant requested an anti-deadlock instruction. See Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C. 1974). The judge considered the parties’ positions and sent a hand-written note to the jury, stating: “I have spoken to both sides in this matter and I’m instructing you to continue with your deliberations. You might consider going to lunch at this time.” The jury sent another note to the judge a few hours later. The note, received at 2:40 p.m. on March 17, 2011, stated: Your Honor, we have continued to deliberate. We continue to be a hung jury on multiple counts. There seems to be no more to discuss. By then, the judge was selecting a jury in another trial, and he was unable to meet with the parties to discuss the jury’s note until 4:00 p.m. Appellant moved for a mistrial at that time, asserting, through counsel, that “the tone of the note is very sad and very certain.” The prosecutor objected to a mistrial and requested that the judge instead ask the jury whether it had reached a verdict on any counts. The prosecutor argued that portions of the jury’s notes suggested that the jury may 30 have reached unanimous decisions on some of the charges. The judge asked the parties whether either was requesting that he take a partial verdict. The prosecutor said yes, while appellant said no and reiterated his request for a mistrial. The judge declined to grant a mistrial, concluding that he should ask the jury whether it had decided any of the charges. He sent another written note to the jury, stating: “Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury: Has the jury reached a verdict with respect to any of the counts? If so, which counts?” The jury promptly responded with a note indicating that it had reached a verdict on three counts: “The jury has reached a verdict on the following counts: Count 1: First degree murder while armed. Count 7: carrying a pistol w/o a license. Count 8: possession of firearm by a convicted felon.” The judge then directed the courtroom clerk to escort the jury back into the courtroom, where the jury’s foreperson announced verdicts of not guilty on the charge of first-degree premeditated murder while armed and guilty on the charges of carrying a pistol without a license in a gun-free zone and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Following a poll of the jury (discussed below), the judge excused the jurors for the day and asked them to return the next morning, Friday, March 18, 2011, to resume their deliberations on the remaining charges. (The 31 jury’s subsequent deliberations on March 18, 2011 were not fruitful. The jury sent two more hung notes, one before and one after the judge gave an anti-deadlock instruction, and the judge declared a mistrial on all charges other than the three decided on March 17, 2011.) Appellant argues that the trial judge improperly invited a partial verdict from the jury on March 17, 2011 without a sufficient indication that the jury had reached a unanimous decision on any of the counts before it. We are not persuaded. Court rules provide that a jury may return a partial verdict “at any time during its deliberations.” Super. Ct. Crim. R. 31 (b). “Ordinarily, therefore, a partial verdict should be accepted when it is offered unless there exists good reason to do otherwise.” Wilson v. United States, 922 A.2d 1192, 1195 (D.C. 2007). A trial judge nonetheless treads a “fine line . . . with respect to partial verdicts” and “must be careful not to coerce juries into reaching decisions,” “particularly where the jury has given no indication of agreement on any charge.” Speaks v. United States, 617 A.2d 942, 952 (D.C. 1992). We review a trial judge’s decision to accept a partial verdict for abuse of discretion, Wilson, 922 A.2d at 1195, and we find no abuse here. The jury’s notes 32 leading up to the trial judge’s decision to inquire about the existence of a partial verdict strongly suggested the possibility that the jury had reached unanimous decisions on some but not all of the charges. The note at 11:00 a.m. on March 17, 2011 stated that the jurors were split on “some of the greater offenses” and asked whether the jury was permitted to “consider the lesser offenses before making a unanimous decision on the greater offenses.” The note a few hours later, at 2:40 p.m., added that “[w]e continue to be a hung jury on multiple counts.” Neither note said anything to indicate or imply an impasse on “all” of the charges, and since second-degree murder while armed was the only lesser-included offense on which the jury had been instructed, the references in the earlier note to a deadlock on “some of the greater offenses” and to an interest in considering the “lesser offenses” raised the likelihood that the jurors were split on some or all of the lead charges in the case – murder, assault with intent to kill, and aggravated assault – but could have reached agreement on at least some of the “lesser” weapons offenses. The statement in the later note that the jury continued to be hung on “multiple” (but not “all”) counts added further support for the judge’s view that the jury might have reached a partial verdict. The trial judge thus reasonably concluded that the jury’s notes indicated the possibility of unanimous agreement on some of the charges. The judge’s return 33 note to the jurors asking whether they had reached a verdict on any of the charges, moreover, was plainly worded and appropriately understated so as to avoid any sense of coercion among the jurors. We are satisfied that the judge successfully treaded the fine line required by our case law.