Court Opinion

ID: 9641741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:39:35.801083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:37.717637
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
The court, sua sponte, reheard this case en banc to consider a renewed attack on the traditional and so-called Allen charge.1 *531Appellant’s point, as he views that instruction, is that it unconstitutionally invades the province of the jury and thus denies a trial by jury. In a word, appellant says that the instruction is coercive. He urges that we follow other courts, particularly the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and command use of the anti-deadlock variation of the Allen charge as approved by the American Bar Association.2
Of course, at the time the instruction was given in this case, it was in conformity with Simms v. United States, D.C.App., 276 A.2d 434 (1971), and not erroneous per se. In the context of this case we are not persuaded to hold the instruction to be error. Moreover, in the circumstances of its use in this case we do not find it coercive to the point of requiring reversal of the conviction.
As a result of a cutting incident outside a neighborhood bar, appellant was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon,3 and with carrying a dangerous weapon.4 The actual trial lasted about S hours. The victim testified that although there had been some past differences between them, appellant, without provocation, cut him on the side of the face as they left the bar. The victim saw no knife but the cut was extensive. The defense was alibi; it was presented through only a single witness, a friend of the accused.
After about 20 minutes of deliberation on the afternoon of the trial, the jury sent a note asking questions as to which hospital the victim had been taken for treatment, whether they could view the victim’s scars at close range, and whether they could see the lineup photograph exhibit. Only the latter request was honored. The jury was excused for the night after only about 20 or 25 minutes of further deliberation. The following morning, after about 45 minutes of additional deliberation, the jury, by note asked for further instructions, which were given without objection. The jury renewed deliberations at 11:20 a. m. After one hour devoted to lunch, deliberations were again undertaken. At 1:50 p. m. another note arrived stating that the jury had reached a verdict on count 2 (carrying a dangerous weapon), but “Can’t reach decision on charge # 1 (ADW) Shall we continue or adjourn?” The court took the verdict, an acquittal on count 2, and then gave the standard Allen charge over appellant’s objection. The jury resumed its deliberations and, within 25 minutes, returned a verdict of guilty on the remaining count.
In Simms v. United States, supra, this court specifically approved the traditional Allen charge. We also quoted with approval the admonitions of Chief Justice Burger when, as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of *532Columbia Circuit, he observed that to avoid a possible charge of coercion, the trial judge should give the traditional Allen charge without variation. Fulwood v. United States, 12S U.S.App.D.C. 183, 186, 369 F.2d 960, 963 (1966). In the instant case the trial court judge gave the-Allen charge without variation as we advised in Simms. While the inconsistency of the verdicts in this case does reveal a curious course of reasoning, we cannot hold that the wide power of the jury, in deliberation, is so severely restricted by its decision to acquit on the weapon count that a verdict on the assault count had to be one of acquittal also. See Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 263 A.2d 258 (1970).
In this case, some of the factors which produce our conclusion that the verdict is not infested with error by the anti-deadlock instruction or its timing are worth listing. The trial was relatively short and the factual dispute narrowly defined. The jury spent about 2 hours and 20 minutes deliberating before announcing deadlock, and another 25 minutes thereafter — about half as long as the trial itself. The jury had not been sequestered. Moreover, a verdict favoring appellant was taken just before the jury received the challenged instruction. See United States v. Birrell, 447 F.2d 1168, 1173 (2d Cir. 1971). Under these circumstances we cannot agree with appellant that the jury verdict was the product of a coercively applied anti-deadlock charge.
Indeed, at oral argument counsel for appellant agreed that the major coercive force in a seemingly deadlocked jury is the obvious existence of a disagreement among the jurors. It is not hard for anyone to understand that' in cases of deliberative group decisions a coercive force naturally exists when those in disagreement must deal face-to-face with those of opposite persuasion. It is not whether the charge supplies coercion, for that element is already present from a desire for a decision and disagreement as to it. The issue in all these cases is whether the instruction would objectively appear to force a juror to abandon his honest conviction as a pure accommodation to the majority of jurors or the court. We see nothing of constitutional magnitude in the reference in the Allen charge to the existence and juxtaposition of a majority and minority.
Because of the recurring nature of this question and its recognized drain on judicial resources,5 we think it now serves the administration of justice to adopt a rule for future cases. Because such a rule will not be a holding in this case, due to our affirmance of the conviction, we propound it in the exercise of our superintendent responsibility.6 We have examined the very contemplative opinions of the courts which have wrestled with this problem. Until recently the major emphasis has been on deciding between the Allen charge and the variation approved by the American Bar Association. Indeed, that is the choice offered by the parties. The option has been between a charge which specifically refers to a majority-minority polarization and a charge in which that probability is totally deemphasized in preference to highlighting the duty of the individual juror to listen but make independent judgment. But of late the court which gave birth to the Allen charge, or the Tuey charge as it is known in Massachusetts,7 has taken an imaginative step to gently discipline its potentially errant offspring. See Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 300 N. E.2d 192 (Mass. 1973). There, as here, the court affirmed a conviction in which the Tuey charge was given to the deadlocked jury. That court went on, in the exercise of its superintendent power, to adopt for the future a variation of the Tuey charge in *533which the majority-minority phrasing was eliminated. In so doing, the Massachusetts court took note of the criticism leveled at the Tuey charge:
[T]he Tuey charge invites the members of the tentative minority to reconsider their position in the light of the views of the tentative majority, but does not invite the majority members to reciprocate toward the minority (except as it asks each juror to listen to the others). The imbalance and weakness of this part of the Tuey charge have now been widely recognized. Judge McGowan has remarked that it “has widely been thought to contain the true dangers to free and unfettered exercise of individual judgment and expression of conscience which is at the very core of the jury system. Many trial judges, although still using the Allen charge, have abandoned this element of it long ago.” United States v. Johnson, 139 U.S.App. D.C. 193, 432 F.2d 626, 633. It has been said to “assume an inherently faulty major premise,” namely, “the majority is right and has reached its preliminary inclination by appropriately inspired processes, and that the minority in a given group possesses attributes of spurious rationality” ; it is “a direction that . [jurors] be influenced by some sort of Gallup Poll conducted in the deliberation room”; it “serves to substitute the coercive influence of any early polling of the jury for the give and take of group deliberation,14 a basic attribute of the jury system often expressed as a major characteristic justifying its continuance in our judicial system.” Aldisert, J., in United States v. Fioravanti [412 F.2d 407, 416, 417 (3d Cir. 1969)].

Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, supra, 300 N.E.2d at 201 (emphasis and footnote as in original). Moreover, an inaccurate but fundamental assumption in any charge phrased exclusively in terms of majority-minority views ignores the possibility that a jury of even number membership may be equally divided. In that event, such an instruction logically falls on deaf ears and may tend to confuse the jury.
We are persuaded that the Massachusetts court has reached the best accommodation for preserving juror independence and yet stimulating a decision in the face of deadlock. Set forth in the Appendix hereto is the instruction, reflecting changes from the previous Allen charge (see footnote 1, supra), which we now adopt for future use in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in lieu of the Allen charge. In our view, the new instruction has the needed attribute of sufficient suasion for decision while preserving juror independence. Thus, frequency of attacks questioning the presence of undue coercion for jury decision will hopefully be reduced. However, it must be remembered that the new instruction also has a “sting”, as the Rodriquez opinion calls it, “and our approval of it is not to be taken as an indication that it may be used prematurely or without evident cause.” Id. 300 N.E.2d at 202. Thus, its use should be confined to instances where deadlock is apparent. Premature use, during the general charge, may lead to confusion and create disagreement among the jurors simply because the judge indicated he expected disagreement.
Our decision herein should not be understood to limit the instructional discretion *534of the trial judges. We are only setting the highwater mark for an anti-deadlock charge. Use of a less emphatic charge such as the one contained in the ABA standards 8 may be deemed appropriate, either in the original charge or after deadlock becomes apparent.
Affirmed.
APPENDIX

The Allen Charge, with Changes

(Deletions are shown by brackets; additions by italicizing.)
In a large proportion of cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected. Although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of your fellows, yet you should examine the questions submitted to you with candor and with proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other. [It is your duty to decide the case if you can conscientiously do so.] You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided; that you are selected in the same manner, and from the same source, from which any future jury must be; and there is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to twelve persons more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced on the one side or the other. And with this view, it is your duty to decide the case, if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to each other’s arguments with a disposition to be convinced. [If much the larger number of jurors are for conviction, a dissenting juror] Thus, where there is disagreement, jurors for acquittal should consider whether [his] their doubt is a reasonable one which makes no impression upon the minds of [so many jurors,] others, equally honest, equally intelligent with [himself] themselves, and who have heard the same evidence, with the same attention, with an equal desire to arrive at the truth, and under the sanction of the same oath. [If, upon] And on the other hand, [the majority are for acquittal, the minority] jurors for conviction ought seriously to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which is not concurred in by [the majority] others with whom they are associated; and distrust the weight or sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction in the minds of their fellows.

. The term “Allen charge” is derived from Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). The charge itself was taken from Commonwealth v. Tuey, 8 Cush. 1 (Mass.1851), and approved by the Supreme Court in Allen.
The standard Allen charge now given (Instruction 2.91, Alternative B, Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia (1972 ed.)) states:
In a large proportion of cases absolute certainty cannot be expected. Although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of your fellows, yet you should examine the questions submitted with candor and with proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other. It is your duty to decide the case if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to each other’s arguments with a disposition to be convinced. If much the larger number of jurors are for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt is a reasonable one which makes no impression upon the minds of so many jurors, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, upon the other hand, the majority are for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which is not concurred in by the majority.

.ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury, Commentary, § 5.4(a) (Approved Draft, 1968) approving, as consistent with the standards, Instruction 8.11 of Jury Instructions and Forms for Federal Criminal Cases, 27 F.R.D. 39, 97-98 (1961), which reads:
The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. Your verdict must be unanimous.
It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere puri>ose of returning a verdict.
You are not partisans. You are judges— judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to ascertain the truth from the evidence in the case.
This proposed instruction appears as Instruction 2.91, Alternative A, in the Criminal Jury Instructions, supra note 1.

. D.C.Code 1973, § 22-502.

. D.C.Code 1973, § 22-3204.

. United States v. Thomas, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 449 F.2d 1177 (1971).

. United States v. Yates, D.C.App., 279 A.2d 616 (1971) ; Tate v. United States, 123 U.S. App.D.C. 261, 359 F.2d 245 (1966). See also United States v. Bailey, 480 F.2d 518, 520-521 (5th Cir. 1973).

.See note 1, supra.

. The possible effect of the majority-minority phase of the charge on the individual juror has been thus depicted: “The majority think he is guilty; the Court thinks I ought to agree with the majority so the Court must think he is guilty. While the Court did tell me not to surrender my conscientious convictions, he told me to doubt seriously the correctness of my own judgment. The Court was talking directly to me, since I am the one who is keeping everyone from going home. So I will just have to change my vote.” State v. Voeckell, 69 Ariz. 145, 157, 210 P.2d 972, 980 (dissenting opinion). Arizona later abandoned the Tuey charge in its conventional form. State v. Thomas, 86 Ariz. 161, 342 P.2d 197.

. See note 2, supra.