Fortune v. United States
65 A.3d 75
D.C.2013Background
- Appellant was charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed and related weapons offenses.
- Trial occurred Feb 2009; witnesses included Morrison (eyewitness) and Covington (additional witness) with credibility issues.
- Jury deliberated for ~8 hours over two days, reported deadlock three times, expressing a fundamental disagreement.
- Judge responded to the third note by stating he disagreed with the jury and that it was his job to decide, then ordered continued deliberations without instructions.
- Jury returned a verdict after about 93 minutes of further deliberations, acquitting on first-degree murder while armed but convicting on lesser offenses; verdict later polled as unanimous.
- Judge later questioned jurors about coercion; two jurors said they felt coerced, leading to a mistrial, which the government then sought to reconsider and reinstate the verdict, then the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge’s response to the third deadlock note was impermissibly coercive. | Appellant argues coercion from the judge’s statement that it is his job to decide and to continue deliberations. | Government contends there was no coercion; instruction amounted to a continuation of deliberations. | Coercion found; judge’s statement conveyed a push toward a verdict. |
| Whether post-verdict juror statements about coercion were admissible to impeach the verdict. | Appellant argues the post-verdict inquiries are admissible to show coercion. | Government argues such statements are impermissible under Rule 606(b) and should be disregarded. | Post-verdict juror statements are inadmissible; evidence ignored for coercion analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1965) (coercive jury instruction in response to deadlock questioned)
- Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C. 1974) (anti-deadlock instruction standards; danger of coercion)
- Hankins v. United States, 3 A.3d 356 (D.C. 2010) (coercion risks when jurors deadlock and coercive responses analyzed)
- Harris v. United States, 622 A.2d 697 (D.C. 1993) (coercive force in jury deliberations; leveraging current deliberation context)
- Sturman, 49 F.3d 1275 (7th Cir. 1995) (jury poll limits; cannot probe deliberations beyond unanimity)
- Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974 (D.C. 1979) (limits on impeachment of verdict by juror statements)
- Jackson v. United States, 368 A.2d 1140 (D.C. 1977) (coercive directive to reach verdict transgresses Winters)