Opinion ID: 220267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts & Trial Proceedings

Text: Defendant Calvin Bryan Evanston (Evanston) was charged with assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6) occurring within the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation in western Arizona. There is no dispute that an assault occurred and that the victim, Evanston's live-in girlfriend, suffered serious bodily injury. [2] When interviewed, Evanston first claimed he returned home after being away for most of the day, only to find his girlfriend lying on the bed covered in blood. He later changed his story, telling investigators that he came home to see a man leaving the house and his girlfriend partially undressed. Believing she was cheating on him, he slapped her, the unexpected force of the blow spinning her to the ground. On the way down, according to Evanston, her face struck the night stand. [3] During a two and one-half day trial, the victim identified Evanston as her assailant and disputed his version of events. There was, she testified, no other man in the house before or during the incident, and her injuries were not the result of a single slap, but rather of Evanston's grabbing her throat, restricting her airways, and hitting her. She remembered Evanston striking her, though she could not remember how many times. She remembered feeling a sharp pain in her face, but could not remember anything that happened between suffering the blow and waking up in the hospital. After five hours of deliberation over two days, the jury advised that it could not reach a verdict. The district court then gave Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 7.7  commonly referred to as an Allen charge, deadlock instruction, or dynamite charge [4]  and asked the jury to continue to deliberate. After almost three hours of additional deliberation, the jury again advised that it was deadlocked. At this point, the district court met with counsel outside the presence of the jury and stated: I'm informed that other judges in this courthouse, when defendants desire it, are perfectly happy to bring in the members of the jury, ascertain the issue on which they are deadlocked, and allow ten more minutes to each side to argue that point and send the jurors back to redeliberate. While the government welcomed the opportunity to get to the heart of whatever their ... disagreement is, Evanston's counsel objected to the proposed process, noting that evidence was closed and that the defense had no desire to reargue or to allow the government to do so. Noting a reluctance to do so over the defense objection, the district court called the jury back and asked if the procedure of, without adding additional evidence, identifying particular points and rearguing those points might assist them in resolving the impasse. The jury agreed and identified two issues: witness credibility and how the victim's injuries were caused. The district court did not permit further elaboration on either point, allow the jury to identify which witness's credibility it questioned, or ask any questions as to the number or nature of the split, but excused the jury to allow counsel to proffer additional arguments in favor or against using the reargument procedure. The defense repeated its earlier objections, arguing that the evidence adduced by the government simply had not met its burden of providing the jury with the answers to its questions. Despite these renewed objections  and reasoning that the procedure would avoid manifest necessity to declare a mistrial  the district court decided it would allow both sides an opportunity to address the jury on the identified issues. The government presented its supplemental closing argument first, and the defense followed. After two more hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict. Evanston appeals that verdict, arguing that the district court's actions in questioning the jurors as to the subject of their deadlock and allowing supplemental argument on those factual issues invaded the jury's role as the sole fact-finder.