United States v. Norvell Moore
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15964
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Moore carjacked a BMW on July 14, 2010, armed with a loaded pistol; he admitted showing the gun but claimed no intent to harm.
- He was charged with carjacking (Count One), using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (Count Two), and felon in possession (Count Three).
- The jury found Moore guilty on Counts Two and Three but could not reach a verdict on Count One.
- The court solicited a partial verdict on Counts Two and Three while deliberations continued on Count One, after which Count Two was deemed premature.
- The jury later deadlocked on Count One; the court declared a mistrial on Count One, dismissed Count One without prejudice, and Moore sought Rule 33 relief for a new trial.
- The district court ultimately vacated Count Two and remanded for a new trial on that count, with Count Three affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Count Two given Count One’s deadlock. | Moore argues Count Two rests on a predicate carjacking with unresolved elements. | Government contends Count Two remains valid despite Count One issues. | Count Two vacated; insufficient basis to sustain premised on unresolved Count One. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing a proposed jury instruction on carjacking intent. | Moore contends the instruction correctly framed intent. | Moore argues the court properly refused the alternative instruction. | Court erred in not adopting clarifying instruction; issue remanded with Count Two. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Moore’s Rule 33 new-trial motion. | Inconsistent verdicts and partial verdict tainted fairness; new trial warranted. | Partial verdict was improper but permissible under Rule 31(b)(2) with caution. | Yes; denial reversed; new trial on Count Two ordered; Count Three affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (premature partial verdict concerns; consistent verdicts possible despite inconsistencies)
- Benedict v. United States, 95 F.3d 17 (8th Cir. 1996) (courts should avoid prompting partial verdicts when deliberations continue on related counts)
- DiLapi v. United States, 651 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1981) (jury should not be prematurely instructed to return partial verdicts; prudence in deliberations)
- Heriot v. United States, 496 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2007) (judges must tread carefully; avoid intruding on deliberations when deadlock may exist)
- LaVallee v. United States, 439 F.3d 670 (10th Cir. 2006) (discretion to allow partial verdicts when deadlock exists on remaining counts)