Brown v. United States
59 A.3d 967
D.C.2013Background
- Five defendants prosecuted on two related conspiracies; Brown convicted on five counts and acquitted on one; two others acquitted on all counts.
- A jury poll during verdicts for Brown revealed one dissenter; after initial poll the court instructed further deliberations and initially declined to include bracketed anti-deadlock language.
- Counsel for Brown urged inclusion of bracketed language from Instruction 2.603; the court declined but noted Instruction 2.608 was given with regard to Brown.
- A second polling occurred; all jurors then agreed with the verdict; Brown moved for mistrial again, which was denied.
- This appeal contests the court’s handling of the poll breakdown and the failure to give bracketed anti-deadlock language; the court must reverse and remand for a new trial.
- The court summarizes the evolving jurisprudence on poll breakdowns, coercion potential, and appropriate instructions, concluding that Brown’s requested language should have been given and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bracketed anti-deadlock language was required after poll breakdown. | Brown's counsel argued necessity of bracketed language. | Government urged limited instruction per Harris. | Yes; remand for new trial. |
| Whether the trial court’s limited instruction failed to dispel coercion. | Brown contends coercion potential remained. | Government contends coercion was not proven. | Yes; coercion potential existed; court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowder v. United States, 383 A.2d 336 (D.C.1978) (anti-deadlock language recommended after poll breakdown)
- Harris v. United States, 622 A.2d 697 (D.C.1993) (two-step coercion analysis; anti-deadlock guidance)
- Green v. United States, 740 A.2d 21 (D.C.1999) (poll breakdown without heightened coercion may omit Crowder language)
- Elliott v. United States, 633 A.2d 36 (D.C.1993) (minimal coercion where court used limited instruction)
- Davis v. United States, 669 A.2d 685 (D.C.1995) (reversal for undue pressure from Winters instruction)
- Benlamine v. United States, 692 A.2d 1359 (D.C.1997) (reversal for anti-deadlock instruction that pressured minority)