United States v. Figueroa, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12992

Figueroa sold drugs to an undercover officer on two occasions, and a gun was observed by the officer during the second sale.
Police later recovered a handgun from the glove compartment of a car linked to Figueroa’s girlfriend; both denied ownership.
Indictment charged Counts One–Four, with Count Four (felon in possession) bifurcated from the others.
Trial began December 14, 2009; Counts One and Two proceeded first, Count Three was tried separately, and Count Four was later added after jury outcomes.
Jury reported inability to reach a verdict on Count Three; the court decided to reconvene the same jury to consider Count Four despite a prior partial verdict and contemplated mistrial on Count Three.
Figueroa was convicted on Counts One, Two, and Four after the belated presentation and instruction on Count Four; sentence imposed accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s handling of the mistrial and reassembly violated Double Jeopardy and due process.	Figueroa argues re-presenting Count Four after a partial discharge impermissibly subjected him to double jeopardy and due process concerns.	The district court acted within permissible bounds by reconvening the jury to consider Count Four after determining manifest necessity for Count Three.	No plain error; district court did not violate Double Jeopardy or due process.
Whether the discharge/reassembly of the jury created outside influence risk.	Discharging jurors poses risk of outside influence and undermines protective shield of trial.	Jurors remained under court control; they did not disperse and were not exposed to outside influence.	No improper discharge; reconvening the jury was permissible.
Whether there was manifest necessity to declare a mistrial on Count Three and whether that affects retrial on Count Four.	Count Three required mistrial due to deadlock with manifest necessity; Count Four remained undefined.	The government’s desire to resolve all charges supports retrial; manifest necessity for Count Four was not clearly shown.	Figueroa could have been retried on Count Three; the district court’s actions to address Count Four did not violate Double Jeopardy.
Whether the bifurcated trial structure impacted rights and outcome.			Affirmed conviction; bifurcation did not violate rights.

United States v. Corso, 549 F.3d 921 (3d Cir. 2008) (plain-error review standard for unpreserved errors)
Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984) (reprosecution after mistrial following hung jury permitted under Double Jeopardy)
United States v. Rivera, 384 F.3d 49 (3d Cir. 2004) (mistrial declarations and necessity principles)
Summers v. United States, 11 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1926) (discharge timing and recallability of jurors before dispersal)
United States v. Marinari, 32 F.3d 1209 (7th Cir. 1994) (jurors not dispersed after partial discharge may be recalled)
Rojas v. United States, 617 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 2010) (recallability of undischarged juries after partial discharge)
Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824) (concept of manifest necessity for mistrial and retrial)