Opinion ID: 2327039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anti-deadlock Instruction

Text: Appellants argue that the trial court coerced the verdict by giving an anti-deadlock instruction encouraging the jury to continue deliberating while leading jurors to believe that tapes of requested testimony would be produced in a timely manner for use in rendering a verdict. The decision to give an anti-deadlock instruction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Coleman v. United States, 515 A.2d 439, 453 (D.C. 1986) (citations omitted). A verdict rendered after an anti-deadlock instruction may be overturned only if, from all the surrounding circumstances, it appears the [anti-deadlock] charge was coercive. Id. (citations omitted). The record shows that on Friday, March 22, 1996, after 15 hours of deliberation, the jurors sent a note stating that they could not reach a unanimous decision. The trial court denied appellants' mistrial motions and told the jury to continue deliberating. The following Monday afternoon, the jurors sent a second note stating that they still were unable to reach a unanimous decision. The next day, the trial court gave the Gallagher instruction. [3] See Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530, 539 (D.C.1974) (en banc) (Gallagher, J., concurring). Throughout deliberations, the jury made several requests for transcripts of the testimony of various defense and government witnesses. The trial court explained that the transcripts were not ready, but that tapes may soon be available. The jury continued asking for the tapes as they deliberated, but the tapes were not delivered. Finally, the jury sent a note asking specific questions regarding the identification and location of various buildings that had been mentioned during trial. Approximately forty minutes after receiving a response, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. In evaluating the potential for jury coercion, this court examines (1) the inherent coercive potential of the situation before the court, and (2) the actions of the trial court to determine whether [the] actions exacerbated, alleviated or were neutral with respect to coercive potential. Davis v. United States, 669 A.2d 680, 683 (D.C.1995) (quoting Harris v. United States, 622 A.2d 697, 701 (D.C.1993)). Here, the trial court gave the Gallagher instructiona softer version of the Winters anti-deadlock instructionwhen the jury had been deliberating for a relatively short period of time given the seriousness of the charges. After being given the instruction, the jury deliberated for an additional three days during which it continued to ask for the tapes. In lieu of the tapes, which were unavailable, the jury asked specific questions that, according to the note, would allow them to form a just and unanimous decision. Shortly after receiving answers (agreed upon by appellants) to their specific questions, the jurors reached a unanimous verdict. Nothing in the record suggests that the anti-deadlock instruction that was given induced any member of the jury to abandon his [or her] honest conviction as a pure accommodation to the majority of the jurors or the court. Winters, 317 A.2d at 532. Given the sequence of events in the course of the jury's deliberationsnotably the continuation of lengthy deliberations after receiving the anti-deadlock instructionit is more reasonable to infer that upon receiving the specific information sought, the jury was able to reach a unanimous verdict. Under these circumstances, there is no basis to infer that the jury's verdict was coerced.