Opinion ID: 161852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Charge in this Case

Text: 17 Mr. McElhiney's second jury trial began on September 28, 1999. After nine days of proceedings, deliberations began and then continued for the next two-and-a-half days. On the morning of October 15, 1999, at approximately 10:30 a.m, the jury sent the district court a note, stating that it was not able to reach a verdict. 18 In response, the district court called the jury to the courtroom. Addressing the jury, the court said: [L]adies and gentlemen, I have received a note from the jury here that is very distressing to me because this has been one of the greatest major efforts made in time and attention and money that I have noted in my 24 years as being a judge. Rec. vol. XX, doc. 329, at 2 (trial transcript, dated Oct. 15, 1999) [hereinafter Tr.]. The district court asked if the jury was in fact at an impasse, to which the foreperson answered [y]es, Your Honor. Id. A brief colloquy then took place, during which the foreperson stressed to the district court that added work or read backs would not assist the jury in reaching a verdict. Id. at 3. 19 The colloquy was followed by a polling of the individual jurors. In response to the question [D]o you feel you cannot reach a verdict? each juror said [y]es. Id. at 4-5. After the poll was completed, the district court and the foreperson engaged in another colloquy. The exchange was as follows: 20 Court: Do you all think that if you deliberated until noon, it would not make any--there would be no change, is that your general consensus, is that what you think? 21 Foreperson: I would be willing to try if that is your wish. 22 Court: Well, frankly, I'd like to have you do this. Of course, I do not know what will happen from now on out. I have no control over that. But we may be doing this again and that's the reason I'd be very happy to have a verdict one way or the other. And it's--but the time and attention and the danger of this case has been, you know, a problem. We've had security in here that was just--I said to somebody we could have fought the Russian Army head on with what we've had here in this case. 23 Well, I--frankly, the Court would certainly like to have you try to reach a verdict in this case. And why don't you continue your deliberations for a while and see if there's any possibility you can reach a verdict in this case. Are you willing to do that? 24 Foreperson: I am, yes. 25 Court: All right. Well, why don't we recess then and you continue to try to deliberate. And if you find that you're absolutely hopelessly deadlocked, why then I would have nothing else I can do except dismiss you with the thanks of the Court. But why don't you give it another try. . . . 26 Id. at 5-6. 27 After the district court concluded these comments, the jury exited the courtroom, at which point Mr. McElhiney, acting as his own counsel, objected. Mr. McElhiney expressed concern that the district court's use of the word danger could have coerced the jury into thinking they must reach a verdict. Id. at 6-7. The district court replied, Well, I'm sure the jury understands that with all the people we've had here that this has been a very difficult case to try. And so I do not feel that there's anything there that's going to turn a verdict one way or the other. 1 Id. 28 At 12:17 p.m., [j]ust prior to [the jury's] noon break, Aple's Br. at 43, the jury sent a note to the district court, asking for the identification of certain individuals in a picture that was an exhibit in the case. According to the note, This information would be helpful . . . in overcoming the hung jury. See Rec. vol. I, doc. 363, at 8 (district court order, filed Feb. 11, 2000) (quoting jury note). Neither party objected, and so the information was provided. At 1:50 p.m., the jury sent the district court a second note, this time seeking to rehear the testimony of Mr. Hawley. The readback of Mr. Hawley's testimony was delayed until 3:50 p.m. See id. ([Mr. Hawley's] testimony was lengthy and some time was required to prepare for the readback of this testimony.). After an hour of the readback, the foreperson indicated that it could stop. Ten minutes later--i.e., at 5:00 p.m-- the jury informed the district court that it had reached a verdict. 29 Mr. McElhiney subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, repeating his contention that the district court's comments to the jury were improper. More specifically, he asserted that the district court's statements constituted an impermissibly coercive Allen charge. In a written order, the district court denied the motion.