Opinion ID: 3035580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ideal

Text: We begin by discussing the hallmark of sound discretion in this area: the procedures that district courts should follow prior to declaring a mistrial based on a deadlocked jury. See United States v. Dixon, 913 F.2d 1305, 1311 (8th Cir. 1990) (“What we seek is assurance on the record that the district court, in declaring a mistrial, acted responsibly and deliberately, and accorded careful consideration to [the defendant’s] interest in having the trial concluded in a single proceeding.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We find useful the Third Circuit’s model criminal jury instruction 9.06, approved in January 2007, which consists not of a jury instruction, but of the following comment (Comment 9.06): “If the jury indicates that it is still deadlocked after the court has given instruction 9.05 (Deadlocked Jury – Return for Deliberations), the Committee recommends the following procedure be followed and recorded. First, to determine whether a supplemental charge is necessary, the court should question the foreperson, but must take steps to ensure that the foreperson does not reveal either the numerical split on the jury or the position of the majority. 15 See United States v. Fiorilla, 850 F.2d 172, 175 (3d Cir. 1988); Government of Virgin Islands v. Romain, 600 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1979). For example, the court may address the foreperson as follows: ‘Advise me of the status of deliberations. If the jury is divided, I do not want to know the numbers or the direction. I only want to know whether in your judgment there is a reasonable probability that the jury can arrive at a unanimous verdict in this case if sent back for further deliberations.’ Second, if the foreperson indicates that the jury is deadlocked, the court should question each juror, asking ‘Do you agree that there is a hopeless deadlock which cannot be resolved by further deliberations?’ Third, if jurors’ answers reflect that they are deadlocked, the court should excuse the jury and hold a hearing with counsel and the defendant. The court should elicit the positions of all the parties, taking particular care to get a record of the position of the defendant(s) and defense counsel on whether to declare a mistrial. If the court declares a mistrial that is not required by manifest necessity, the Double Jeopardy 16 Clause will bar a retrial of the case unless the defendant consented to the mistrial. See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976); United States v. Rivera, 384 F.3d 49 (3d Cir. 2004). When the defendant does not consent to the mistrial, the courts consider a number of factors to determine whether the mistrial represents an abuse of discretion and whether it bars further prosecution:

cannot agree;

presented to the jury;
between the judge and jury;
impact of coercion of further deliberations on the jury. See [citation]. 17 If the court concludes that a mistrial is necessary, the court should make an explicit finding of manifest necessity. For example, the court may state: ‘Based on an evaluation of the following factors (state factors relevant to case), I find that the jury is unable to reach a verdict, that further deliberations would be futile, and that there is no alternative but to declare a mistrial for reasons of manifest necessity and to dismiss the jury.’ Fourth, the court should call the jury back into the courtroom and discharge the jurors.” Today we hold that district courts in our Circuit should follow the above procedure prior to declaring a mistrial based on a deadlocked jury. We use the word “should” instead of “must” because the orderly process of jury deliberations rests in the discretion of the trial judge, and we do not wish to bind his hands without regard to the factual and procedural history in any individual case. See United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2004) (“it is well-established that [a district court] has broad discretion to determine how long jury deliberations should continue”), vacated on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086 (2006). We also note that some of our sister circuits have interpreted the Supreme Court’s precedent in Washington to hold that “the trial judge does not have to make an explicit finding of ‘manifest 18 necessity’ or expressly state that particular alternatives were considered and rejected.” Dixon, 913 F.2d at 1311. Again, we do not turn Comment 9.06 into a mandate, but, all else being equal, a district court’s explanation of its decision on the record helps the parties, this Court on appeal, and the district court itself in its exercise of sound discretion. See id. As such, we believe that there are few situations in which the procedure outlined in Comment 9.06 would not be the most desirable one to follow. Thus, it should be followed in cases involving a mistrial declaration based on a deadlocked jury. In addition, district courts must follow Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.3, which provides: “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.” Here, we use the word “must” because the Rule itself uses that word. We note further that Comment 9.06 states that “[t]he court should elicit the positions of all the parties” in the third step of its outlined procedure. We do not equate that recommendation in Comment 9.06 with the mandate in Rule 26.3 because doing so would attach a precise time stamp to Rule 26.3 when its text merely states, “[b]efore ordering a mistrial.” At the same time, district courts should be mindful to follow Rule 26.3 at a sensible moment, which often will be one that is 19 closer to the actual moment in which a mistrial is declared. We will explain why shortly. See III.B, infra. We have therefore summarized the ideal set of procedures – Comment 9.06 combined with Rule 26.3 at an opportune moment – to be followed by district courts when faced with the decision to declare a mistrial leading to the discharge of a deadlocked jury.