After some deliberation on a two-count indictment, the jury sent a note to the trial judge advising that it was unable to arrive at a verdict "on both counts because of insufficient evidence." In his response the judge stated that the jury had to reach a decision. Thereafter the petitioner was found guilty on one count. Held: In its context and under all the circumstances of this case, the judge's statement had a coercive effect on the jury and therefore the conviction must be reversed.

117 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 330 F.2d 220, reversed and remanded.

H. Thomas Sisk argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were M. Michael Cramer and David B. Isbell.

Philip B. Heymann argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was charged in a two-count indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with robbing a High's Dairy Products store on December 27, 1962 (count 1), and with assault with intent to rob upon the proprietress of a grocery store on January 24, 1963 (count 2), in violation of §§ 22-2901 and 22-501, respectively, of the District of Columbia Code. Following a trial by jury, he was found guilty on count 1 and not guilty on count 2. He was sentenced to imprisonment for from 3 to 10 years. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 330 F.2d 220. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, four judges dissenting.

Slightly more than two hours after the jury retired to deliberate, the jury sent a note to the trial judge advising that it had been unable to agree upon a verdict "on both counts because of insufficient evidence." The judge thereupon recalled the jury to the courtroom and in the course of his response stated that "You have got to reach a decision in this case." We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 944, to consider whether in its context and under all the circumstances of this case the statement was coercive. The Solicitor General in his brief in this Court stated:

"Of course, if this Court should conclude that the judge's statement had the coercive effect attributed to it, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial; the principle that jurors may not be coerced into surrendering views conscientiously held is so clear as to require no elaboration."

Upon review of the record, we conclude that in its context and under all the circumstances the judge's statement had the coercive effect attributed to it. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Cf. Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 450; Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 307-308; United States v. Rogers, 289 F.2d 433, 435 (C.A. 4th Cir.)

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent.

Summaries of

Jenkins v. United States

U.S.

Apr 5, 1965

380 U.S. 445 (1965)

holding an Allen charge was impermissible in a case where the judge told the jury, "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from United States v. Cabello

holding reversible error when judge told the jury, "you have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from Packer v. Hill

holding that charge that said "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case" was coercive

Summary of this case from Boyd v. Scott

holding that, under all the circumstances, a supplemental instruction that the jury must reach a verdict was coercive

Summary of this case from Cornell v. State of Iowa

holding that instructing a deadlocked jury that, "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case," was coercive and constituted reversible error

Summary of this case from Hampton v. State

holding that a trial judge's statement, in response to a jury note declaring its inability to agree on a verdict, that “[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case,” was coercive

Summary of this case from Fortune v. United States

holding an Allen charge was unduly coercive when the trial judge said to the jury, "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from State v. Rodriguez

holding a federal trial court's supplemental instruction, "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case" given after only two hours of deliberation, constituted error

Summary of this case from Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Assn

holding that an instruction given after the jury informed the judge that it was unable to reach a verdict, and the judge told the jury it had to reach a decision, was improper after relying on other cases involving the exercise of supervisory powers, and not relying on constitutional grounds

Summary of this case from State v. Mobley

Summary of this case from State v. Pullin

finding coercive the trial judge' statement, "You have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Richards

finding a supplemental jury instruction coercive where, after the jury had deliberated for slightly over two hours and declared itself deadlocked, the judge told the jury: "You have got to reach a decision in this case."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Boone

finding coercion where, after two hours of deliberations, the court told a deadlocked jury: "You have got to reach a decision in this case."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Trala

finding coercive a judge's direction to the jury that, "You have got to reach a decision in this case."

Summary of this case from Guardino v. Sabourin

finding judge's statement to jury, "You have got to reach a decision in this case," coercive

Summary of this case from Miller-Bey v. Stine

finding judge's statement to jury, "You have got to reach a decision in this case," coercive

Summary of this case from Smalls v. Batista

concluding that the judge's statement — "You have got to reach a decision in this case" — had a coercive effect

Summary of this case from Willoughby v. Ryan

reversing and remanding the case for a new trial because the charge told the jury "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case."

Summary of this case from State v. Rampey

reversing where the trial judge told the jury, "You have got to reach a verdict"

Summary of this case from State v. Sweet

reversing and remanding case for a new trial because the charge told the jury "[y]ou have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from State v. Taylor

reversing conviction because of coercive supplemental jury instruction, "You have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Rogers

reversing conviction because of instruction to deadlocked jury that "You have got to reach a decision in this case"

Summary of this case from State v. Haines

recognizing that entire trial record "in its context and under all the circumstances of th[e] case" must be reviewed to determine if trial judge's statements, questions, and instructions amounted to coercion

Summary of this case from State v. Pannell

In Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965), we held an instruction directing the jury that it had to reach a verdict was reversible error; the logic of Jenkins cannot be said to be inapposite here, given the peculiar circumstances in which discussions between the judge and the foreman took place.

Summary of this case from United States v. United States Gypsum Co.

Jenkins v. United States

Summary

Opinion

Jenkins v. United States

Jenkins v. United States

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Jenkins v. United States

Summary

Opinion

Jenkins v. United States

Jenkins v. United States

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations