Sumnar Robert Brewster v. Gary Hetzel, 913 F.3d 1042

Sumnar Brewster was tried in Alabama for two counts of armed robbery; jury deliberated ~11 hours over two days and returned unanimous guilty verdicts; Brewster sentenced to life without parole.
During deliberations the jury sent five notes reporting deadlock: initially 9-3, later 11-1, and repeatedly that one juror refused to discuss the case and was doing crossword puzzles.
Two different judges repeatedly instructed the jury to continue deliberating, including an Allen charge and a lengthy admonition that emphasized the jurors' oath and urged them to "take [it] seriously."
After the final note, the judge ordered removal of reading materials from the jury room; 18 minutes later the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.
Brewster's trial counsel made no objections and did not move for a mistrial at any point; he raised ineffective-assistance claims in state postconviction proceedings and federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo (state courts had misconstrued Brewster's claim as an attack solely on Allen language) and concluded counsel rendered deficient performance and Brewster was prejudiced by the coerced-verdict circumstances; the federal habeas denial was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial when the court repeatedly instructed a jury that reported deadlock to continue deliberating	Brewster: counsel should have objected or moved for mistrial because repeated instructions, knowledge of numerical splits, oath-focused admonitions, and removal of reading materials coerced the holdout and produced an unreliable verdict	State: no coercive or threatening language in the supplemental charges; counsel not deficient for failing to mount meritless objections; state courts reasonably rejected claim	Held for Brewster: counsel deficient for failing to object or move for mistrial as coercive circumstances accumulated; prejudice shown because a mistrial was warranted and verdict rendered unreliable
Whether the state courts’ adjudication warranted AEDPA deference on Brewster's actual claim	Brewster: state courts mischaracterized his claim as a narrow attack on Allen language rather than the cumulative coercive conduct; thus no merits adjudication of his true claim	State: state courts addressed supplemental charge language and rejected coercion; district court applied AEDPA deference	Held: No AEDPA deference because state courts adjudicated a different (recast) claim; federal court reviewed de novo

Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (discussing historical practices to force unanimity and cautioning about coercion)
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) (permitting a court to admonish jurors to continue deliberating in certain circumstances)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice inquiry must consider fundamental fairness and reliability, not only different outcome)
Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) (jury entitled to uncoerced verdict; timing between instruction and verdict probative of coercion)
Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (1926) (federal supervisory rule prohibiting judges from inquiring into numerical jury splits)
United States v. Fossler, 597 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1979) (multiple Allen charges and short interval to verdict can indicate coercion)
United States v. Davis, 779 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2015) (examining totality of circumstances for coercion in supplemental instructions)
Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263 (2014) (trial counsel's ignorance of fundamental law can constitute unreasonable performance)