United States v. Evanston
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13647
9th Cir.2011Background
- Evanston was charged with assault resulting in serious bodily injury within the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation.
- During a two-and-a-half day trial, the victim identified Evanston and disputed his version of events.
- After five hours over two days, the jury deadlocked; the district court gave a Ninth Circuit Allen charge and directed further deliberation.
- The jury later deadlocked again; the district court proposed a procedure to identify issues and allow ten minutes of supplemental argument on those points.
- Defense objected; the district court proceeded, and the government with defense counsel argued on two identified issues: witness credibility and causation of injuries.
- The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict after the supplemental arguments; Evanston appealed, challenging the district court’s deadlock management and supplemental-argument procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supplemental factual argument after an Allen charge is permissible | Evanston; government argues district court may assist jury by addressing factual questions. | Evanston; procedure intrudes on jury’s fact-finding role and risks coercion. | Abuse of discretion; impermissible intrusion on the jury’s fact-finding domain. |
| Whether the procedure violated jury deliberations secrecy and coerced the jury | Government suggests clarifying legal standards aids verdicts without coercion. | Procedure required jury revelations and allowed counsel to participate in deliberations. | Yes; violated deliberative secrecy and risked coercion. |
| Whether absence of formal rulemaking to adopt supplemental-argument practice affects validity | Practice could be justified as beneficial trial-management innovation. | Lack of formal adoption undermines legitimacy and invites arbitrary use. | Unfavorably viewed; absence of formal adoption casts additional doubt. |
| Whether there were less coercive alternatives available | Supplemental arguments resolved ambiguities and aided verdict. | rereading instructions or other procedures could have addressed concerns without inviting deliberative intrusion. | District court abused discretion; alternatives existed. |
| Whether the errors were harmless or prejudicial | Not asserted as harmless; possible impact on verdict unknown. | Potential coercion tainted verdict; cannot deem harmless. | Prejudice established; reversible error; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayeni v. United States, 374 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (discourages factual supplemental argument; concerns intrude on jury deliberations)
- United States v. Goode, 814 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1987) (abuse of discretion review for trial-management decisions)
- United States v. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) (coercion and jury-deliberation principles in reviewing trial-management actions)
- United States v. Mason, 658 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1981) (Allen charges; coercive potential of dynamite instructions)
- Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933) (judge as arbiter of law; jury as fact-finder; limits on fact-finding role)
- United States v. Seawell, 550 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1977) (coercive potential of second Allen charge)
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (1926) (per se prohibition on probing numerical division of juries)
- Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) (due process concerns with jury coercion in verdicts)