940 F.3d 817
2d Cir.2019Background
- Pierce was indicted on Count 1 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 846). Trial evidence is not at issue here.
- The jury returned a general verdict finding Pierce "Guilty" on Count 1, but on the verdict form answered eight special interrogatories (for possession with intent to distribute and distribution for each of the four drugs) by checking "Not Proven" for each.
- The district judge observed the facial inconsistency, polled the jurors, did not discharge them immediately, asked counsel for proposals, but the Government did not request the jury be sent back to deliberate; the jury was then discharged.
- Pierce moved to set aside the guilty verdict; the district court granted the motion and entered judgment of acquittal on Count 1 because the verdict and interrogatory answers were irreconcilably inconsistent.
- The Government appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding the verdicts were "metaphysically impossible" and that setting aside the guilty verdict was appropriate, especially given the Government’s role drafting the verdict sheet and not seeking jury reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Pierce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general guilty verdict can stand despite jury answers on special interrogatories to the same-count elements that negate guilt | Inconsistent verdicts are permissible; precedent (Dunn/Powell) allows inconsistent jury findings so guilty verdict should stand | The interrogatories duplicated Count 1's elements; unanimous "Not Proven" on each drug negates the conspiracy and requires acquittal | The inconsistency was irreconcilable; conviction set aside and district court affirmed |
| Proper remedy when an inconsistency is discovered before discharge (jury reconsideration vs. acquittal) | Government did not propose sending jury back; suggested the guilty verdict sufficed | Asked for dismissal/acquittal because jury's special answers defeated the count | Court noted sending jurors back to deliberate can cure inconsistencies (see Shippley) but here jurors were discharged without reconsideration; acquittal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 (jury must find facts that increase statutory maximum)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (inconsistent verdicts across counts not necessarily reversible)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (inconsistency in jury verdicts generally not grounds for reversal)
- United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (inconsistent verdicts as to different defendants)
- Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (reaffirming limited review of inconsistent verdicts)
- United States v. Shippley, 690 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2012) (trial judge sent jury back to cure special-verdict inconsistency)
- United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2012) (special verdicts finding “none” for charged drugs required acquittal)
- United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1984) (discussing use and limits of interrogatories in criminal cases)
- United States v. Ogando, 968 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1992) (circumstances where interrogatories are appropriate)