United States v. Ronald William Jones
518 F. App'x 741
11th Cir.2013Background
- Jones was indicted on four counts: 922(g)(1); 922(k); 841(a)(1)/(b)(1)(B); and 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
- Jury found Jones guilty on all counts; district court sentenced concurrent 92-month terms on Counts 1 and 3, concurrent 60-month on Count 2, and 60-month consecutive on Count 4, totaling 152 months.
- Jones challenged Count 4’s Allen charge as premature/coercive and sought mistrial instead.
- The court considered an Allen charge after one jury statement of difficulty, with a 30-minute interval before verdict.
- The court applied the modified pattern Allen charge and conducted totality-of-circumstances review; no coercion found.
- Jones also challenged the judgment’s description of Count 4; the court treated this as a clerical error and remanded for correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Allen charge on Count 4 was abuse of discretion | Jones | Jones | No abuse; not inherently coercive |
| Whether the Allen charge was premature | Jones | Jones | Not reversible error given circumstances |
| Whether the clerical error in Count 4’s judgment should be corrected | Jones | Jones | Remand for limited correction appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (Abuse-of-Allen-charge review; totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838 (11th Cir. 1998) (Non-polarized jurors; post-charge timing considerations)
- United States v. Chigbo, 38 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 1994) (Modified Allen charge timing in multiple-count cases)
- United States v. Gallo-Chamorro, 48 F.3d 502 (11th Cir. 1995) (Preservation and standard of review for Allen charges)
- United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (Definition of an Allen charge)
- United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010) (Commerce Clause challenges to § 924(c))