United States v. Jean Therve, 764 F.3d 1293

Jean Therve was indicted for bribing an ICE deportation officer; he pled not guilty and proceeded to trial.
First trial (Nov. 2012): government presented its case; defense presented no witnesses; jury began deliberations and sent notes indicating it was deadlocked.
Jury sent an initial note that it appeared hung; court gave a modified Allen charge; jury later sent a second note revealing an 11–1 split favoring not guilty and that the holdout would not change.
The judge disclosed the full contents of the second note to counsel, asked for their views, then called the jury, confirmed the foreperson’s view that unanimity was impossible, and declared a mistrial.
On retrial (Dec. 2012) Therve was convicted and sentenced to 33 months; he appealed, arguing the judge abused discretion by disclosing the numerical division and thereby manipulating the parties toward mistrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial after disclosing the jury’s numerical division	Therve: disclosure of 11–1 split manipulated counsel’s positions and favored the government; mistrial was not "manifestly necessary" and violated double jeopardy protections	Government: jury was clearly deadlocked despite an Allen charge; judge reasonably found further deliberation would be coercive and declared mistrial based on manifest necessity	Court affirmed: judge exercised sound discretion; deadlock was the "classic" basis for mistrial, disclosure did not render the decision improper and manifest necessity was implicit

United States v. Berroa, 374 F.3d 1053 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing mistrial orders and deference to trial court)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (manifest necessity doctrine; spectrum of mistrial problems and required scrutiny)
United States v. Chica, 14 F.3d 1527 (11th Cir. 1994) (appellate review of mistrial and review of entire record)
Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364 (1961) (warning against mistrials that favor prosecution tactically)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (deference to trial judge to avoid coercive verdicts after jury deadlock)
United States v. Warren, 594 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1979) (trial judge should not disclose numerical jury division)
United States v. Gordy, 526 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1976) (trial judge communications with jurors significant in deadlock determinations)
United States v. Starling, 571 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1978) (factors supporting mistrial when jury deadlocks)