Court Opinion

ID: 2963528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:30.872092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.450538
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1555

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               JOSEPH EUGENE BARBIONI,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                _____________________

               William Maselli for appellant.
               _______________
               F. Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
               _______________
          Jay  P. McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Elizabeth  C.
          _________________                                   _____________
          Woodcock, Assistant  United States  Attorney, were  on brief  for
          ________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    August 7, 1995
                                 ____________________

                    TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge.   Defendant-appellant  Joseph
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge.
                                ____________

          Barbioni  appeals on double jeopardy grounds the district court's

          denial of his motion to dismiss.  The district court had declared

          a mistrial  after  the jury  announced  that it  was  deadlocked.

          Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND

                    Appellant   Barbioni  was   indicted   and  tried   for

          deliberately  making   false  statements  to  the  United  States

          Department of Labor  Workers' Compensation Program, and  for mail

          fraud, in violation of 18  U.S.C.    1001 and 1341, respectively.

          After a  trial that lasted  almost four days, the  jury was given

          instructions by the  district court and began  its deliberations.

          After  approximately seven  hours, the  jury sent  a note  to the

          district court, saying  that it could  not reach a verdict.   The

          district court judge then brought  the jury back to the courtroom

          and  gave it  some general  instructions,  such as  reminding the

          jurors that the verdict must be unanimous.  The court then stated

          to the jury  that it did not  intend to keep them  there "against

          your will and beat a verdict out of you one way or the other, but

          I want to  make one more effort  to attempt to reach  a unanimous

          verdict if we can."  The court continued, "[I]f that's impossible

          in  your collective  judgment, then  advise  me of  that fact  in

          writing . . . and we'll respond accordingly."

                    The jury then retired again.  After three more hours of

          further deliberations,  the jury again  sent a note to  the court

          saying that it could not reach  a unanimous decision.  The  judge

                                         -2-

          then called counsel  for the government and  defense counsel into

          chambers and explained that he was going to inquire of the jurors

          individually whether they all agreed  that they could not reach a

          verdict.  If  they all agreed, the court stated, it would declare

          a  mistrial.   The defense  objected  to this  course of  action,

          requesting that the jury be given more time to deliberate after a

          weekend's rest.

                    Nevertheless, the court polled the jurors  individually

          in open court.   Each juror stated  that he or she  was satisfied

          that the  jury was deadlocked,  and that further  instructions or

          deliberations   were   not  likely   to  resolve   the  deadlock.

          Accordingly, the district court declared a mistrial and dismissed

          the jury over defense counsel's objections.

                                       ANALYSIS
                                       ANALYSIS

                    Barbioni  now claims that the district court abused its

          discretion in declaring a mistrial, and that retrial is barred by

          the Double Jeopardy Clause of  the United States Constitution.  A

          decision  to  declare  a  mistrial  is  committed  to  the  sound

          discretion of  the trial court,  Arizona v. Washington,  434 U.S.
                                           _______    __________

          497, 506  (1978), and we  therefore review only  for an abuse  of

          this discretion.  After carefully reviewing the record, we see no

          such abuse here.

                    While  it is  certainly  true that  a  defendant has  a

          "valued  right  to  have  his  trial completed  by  a  particular

          tribunal,"  Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 (1949),  this right
                      ____    ______

          is  not absolute.   Rather,  it  is subject  to  the doctrine  of

                                         -3-

          "manifest necessity."   United States v. Ram rez,  884 F.2d 1524,
                                  _____________    _______

          1528 (1st Cir.  1989) (citing United States v. P rez,  22 U.S. (9
                                        _____________    _____

          Wheat.) 579, 580  (1824).  Under this doctrine,  a district court

          may declare a mistrial over  the defendant's objection only if it

          determines that there is  a "manifest necessity" for a  mistrial,

          or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.   Id.;
                                                                       __

          see  also United  States v.  DiPietro, 936  F.2d 6,  9  (1st Cir.
          _________ ______________     ________

          1991).   Moreover,  a  district  court must  find,  based on  the

          particular  circumstances surrounding  the trial  and the  jury's

          deliberations, that there exists a "high degree" of necessity for

          a mistrial before  making such a declaration.   Ram rez, 884 F.2d
                                                          _______

          at 1528-29 (citing Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. at 506).
                             _______    __________

                    Examining  the circumstances  of  the instant  case, we

          think that  the district  court did not  abuse its  discretion in

          finding "manifest necessity" for declaring a  mistrial.  The jury

          deliberated for  almost ten  hours, after  which each  individual

          juror unequivocally expressed the opinion that the jury could not

          reach a unanimous decision.   The court polled the jurors on this

          point with great care before concluding that further deliberation

          would be  futile.1   Moreover, the trial  was a  relatively short
                              
          ____________________

          1  Barbioni also contends that the court should have instead sent
          the  jurors  home  and  reconvened  them  for  deliberations  the
          following Monday.  Under the circumstances, we cannot find  error
          in  the court's  rejection of  this suggestion.   The  jurors had
          unanimously declared to the court  that they did not believe that
          further deliberations  would be  fruitful.   By disregarding  the
          jurors  on this  point and  demanding  further deliberation,  the
          court might  have risked  pressuring the  jurors into  abandoning
          good faith opinions  merely for the  sake of reaching  unanimity.
          We do not mean that the  district court was obliged to take  this
          view, but it was a pertinent consideration.

                                         -4-

          one,  and   the  legal   issues  at   stake  were   not  complex.

          Nevertheless,  the jurors  could  not reach  a verdict  after ten

          hours  of  deliberation.    We  think  that  these  circumstances

          rationally permitted the district court to conclude that manifest

          necessity justified the declaration of a mistrial.

                    It is well settled  that an appeal  from a denial of  a

          motion to  dismiss  following a  "hung  jury" does  not  normally

          present  a valid  Double Jeopardy  claim.   Richardson v.  United
                                                      __________     ______

          States, 468  U.S. 317, 324  (1984); United States v.  Porter, 807
          ______                              _____________     ______

          F.2d 21, 22 (1st Cir. 1986),  cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1048 (1987).
                                        _____ ______

          Given the  district court's sound  exercise of its  discretion in

          declaring a mistrial, we see  no reason here to depart  from this

          rule.    Accordingly,  the  district  court's  declaration  of  a

          mistrial and denial of  Barbioni's motion to dismiss the  charges

          are affirmed.2 
              ________

           

                              
          ____________________

          2  Barbioni also contends on appeal that the district court erred
          in its  modified Allen  instruction to  the jury.   See  Allen v.
                           _____                              ___  _____
          United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).   At the time the charge  was
          _____________
          given,  however,  defense  counsel raised  no  objections  to the
          instruction.  Even when the district court had finished and asked
          counsel if they had anything to add to the modified Allen charge,
                                                              _____
          defense counsel  stated, "No, your  Honor.  Thank you."   Because
          Barbioni  did  not  object  to  the instruction,  and  raised  no
          arguments or suggestions  when given the opportunity to  do so by
          the district  court,  we deem  this  argument waived  on  appeal.
          Windsor Mount Joy v. Giragosian,  53  F.3d __, __ (1st Cir. 1995)
          _________________    __________
          (arguments  not  properly  raised  below  are  deemed  waived  on
          appeal).

                                         -5-