Jury Coercion

149 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Elliott Kahaner
  317 F.2d 459· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-25 ·cited 246×
  The court denied petitions for rehearing, finding that the excluded evidence was remote and likely to open collateral issues, and that there was no evidence of further jury harassment.
• United States v. Robinson
  560 F.2d 507· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-28 ·cited 176×
• Kelley v. State
  486 So. 2d 578· Fla.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 169×
  William Kelley appeals his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for a 1966 murder prosecuted 15 years later based largely on testimony from John Sweet, an accomplice who received immunity. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejectin
• United States v. Ramirez
  710 F.2d 535· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 125×
  The court held that the police conduct did not violate due process or supervisory power, the admission of a confession was harmless error, jury instructions were adequate, the jury was not coerced, the indictment contained no prejudicial surplusage, and the evidence was sufficien
• Blunt v. United States
  244 F.2d 355· D.C. Cir.· 1957-04-18 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the trial judge's conduct, including improper characterization of evidence, erroneous exclusion of testimony, and coercive jury instructions, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Weiner
  578 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-15 ·cited 119×
  The court held that juror affidavits are inadmissible to impeach a unanimous verdict returned in open court, that the Allen charge was not coercive, and that various other alleged trial errors, including restrictions on cross-examination and issues related to coconspirator hearsa
• Walker v. United States
  342 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1965-02-25 ·cited 102×
  The court's opinion, except for the Allen charge variation, is concurred with.
• United States v. Norton
  867 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that various evidentiary and prosecutorial rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Elkins
  885 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 92×
  The court affirmed the conspiracy conviction, finding the indictment adequately charged conspiracy to defraud the United States and the jury was properly instructed. The court also affirmed the conviction related to export violations, finding the Allen charge was not coercive and
• United States v. Thomas
  449 F.2d 1177· D.C. Cir.· 1971-09-14 ·cited 92×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Allen charge and the trial court's remarks were not coercive and that the conviction should be affirmed.
• Elbert Croft v. State
  117 Fla. 832· Fla.· 1935-01-02 ·cited 88×
  Elbert Croft was convicted of armed robbery with intent to kill or maim if resisted. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the specific intent to kill or maim if resisted was a material element of the crime that the State was
• United States v. Olweiss
  138 F.2d 798· 2d Cir.· 1943-11-03 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the defendants' conviction for concealing assets was supported by competent evidence and that the trial judge's remarks to the jury did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Grosso
  358 F.2d 154· 3d Cir.· 1966-03-25 ·cited 80×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in communicating with the jury ex parte, the errors did not warrant reversal because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the defendant's counsel failed to object. The court also found the appellant lacked standing to challeng
• United States v. Burl A. Sawyers
  423 F.2d 1335· 4th Cir.· 1970-03-23 ·cited 74×
  The court held that giving an Allen-type charge after being informed of the jury's numerical division, especially when the jury note indicated a juror believed the judge would penalize not guilty votes, was improper and coercive.
• United States v. Green
  523 F.2d 229· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-29 ·cited 72×
  The court held that while the trial judge improperly pressured the jury by setting a deadline for deliberations, the issue was waived due to the defendants' acquiescence.
• Grady B. Burroughs v. United States
  365 F.2d 431· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-31 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial court's supplemental instructions to the jury, urging them to reach a verdict by a specific time, constituted coercion and went beyond permissible limits, requiring reversal.
• Huffman v. United States
  297 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-11 ·cited 68×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to convict Evelyn Nelson Huffman, but sufficient evidence to convict James Huffman.
• United States v. Seawell
  550 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 50×
  The court held that repeating the Allen charge under the circumstances was not reversible error, as it did not constitute an unwarranted intrusion into trial court discretion or coerce the jury.
• Woods v. State
  490 So. 2d 24· Fla.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 47×
  Ronald Woods was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing a corrections officer to death while imprisoned. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence after reviewing claims regarding jury selection, trial continuance denial, courtro
• United States v. White
  589 F.2d 1283· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 47×
  The court held that testimony given in a civil case, even if uncounseled and potentially inculpatory, is admissible in a subsequent criminal case if not compelled, and that evidence of subsequent unexplained wealth is relevant in a conspiracy prosecution.
• Williams v. United States
  419 F.2d 740· D.C. Cir.· 1969-10-23 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Mallory rule, which excludes confessions obtained before presentment to a commissioner, does not apply to lineups conducted before presentment, especially pre-Wade lineups. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing t
• United States v. Armstrong
  654 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 46×
  A properly balanced Allen charge, given before deliberations or allowed in the jury room, is not inherently coercive.
• United States v. Sexton
  456 F.2d 961· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning of a juror who expressed uncertainty during the polling of the verdict was coercive and deprived the defendant of a unanimous verdict.
• United States v. Samuel Dunkel & Co., Inc.
  173 F.2d 506· 2d Cir.· 1949-03-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that inquiring about the numerical division of a jury, even without revealing specific numbers, constitutes reversible error because it can exert coercive influence on the jury's deliberations.
• N. Tex. Producers Ass'n v. Metzger Dairies, Inc.
  348 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial and that the jury's verdict of monopolistic practices under the Sherman Act was supported by the evidence. Additional attorney fees were awarded for the appeal.
• United States v. Fossler
  597 F.2d 478· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the repeated delivery of an Allen charge over the defendant's objection, after the jury had indicated it was deadlocked multiple times, constituted coercion and reversible error.
• United States v. Scruggs
  583 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-06 ·cited 38×
  The court, through Judge Gee, correctly applied the law of the Circuit regarding the Allen charge.
• Garland Edward Goff v. The United States
  446 F.2d 623· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that imposing a time limit on jury deliberations, in conjunction with an Allen-type instruction, constitutes reversible error due to coercion.
• Lowenfield v. Phelps
  817 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 37×
  The dissenting judge argues that the supplemental Allen charge and Brasfield inquiry used during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case are unconstitutionally coercive.
• United States v. Cheramie
  520 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial judge's supplemental jury charge was not coercive and did not deny the defendant a fair trial.
• Scoggins v. State
  726 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1999-01-21 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a trial judge's inquiry into a jury's numerical division during deadlock constitutes fundamental error requiring automatic reversal. The Court held that while such inquiry is error, it does no
• Nance v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  817 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in resubmitting an amended verdict form to the jury due to inconsistent answers, nor in allowing a late amendment to the complaint. However, the court reversed due to the district court's failure to include a question about the e
• United States v. Edwards
  469 F.2d 1362· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the pistols were admissible under Terry v. Ohio, but the armed robbery convictions from trial three must be reversed due to an improper jury poll and the use of recorded testimony from unavailable witnesses.
• Bruce v. Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy
  126 F.2d 224· D.C. Cir.· 1942-02-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a verdict recorded under circumstances of juror confusion and improper questioning is invalid and requires a new trial.
• Kozakoff v. State
  323 So. 2d 28· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-12-12 ·cited 33×
  The trial court's informal comments to the jury during voir dire prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial, warranting reversal.
• Cook v. United States
  254 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a trial judge's inquiry into the numerical standing of a deadlocked jury constitutes plain error, even if not specifically objected to at trial.
• United States v. Sorcey
  151 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1945-11-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court's instructions on accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence were adequate, and that the court's remarks to the jury and the bailiff's communication did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Coast OF Me. Lobster Co., Inc.
  557 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting a stipulation regarding bankruptcy, denying a mistrial, refusing a specific jury instruction, presenting an altered indictment, engaging in a colloquy with the jury, or accepting a verdict unsupported by evidence.
• Ernie Lee Bell v. State
  311 So. 2d 179· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-04-17 ·cited 30×
  Bell appealed his conviction for rape and petty larceny, arguing that the trial court erred by telling a juror that all six jurors must agree on a verdict immediately after giving an Allen charge during jury deliberations. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding
• Scoggins v. State
  691 So. 2d 1185· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-04-23 ·cited 29×
  James Scoggins was convicted of cocaine possession after a jury trial. The primary issue concerns whether a trial judge erred by inquiring into the jury's numerical division when informed the jury was deadlocked, and if so, whether such error warrants reversal.
• Ellis Singletary v. Mary Kendra Lewis, M.D.
  584 So. 2d 634· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-08-12 ·cited 28×
  In this medical malpractice appeal, the court reversed a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Lewis and remanded for juror interviews after evidence emerged that a juror may have concealed knowledge of the plaintiff's family during voir dire and that improper remarks suggesting bias may
• United States v. Bottom
  638 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict despite a variance from the indictment, the jury verdicts were not legally inconsistent, and the trial court's Allen charge was not reversible error.
• United States v. Phillips Lee Saunders
  641 F.2d 659· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Grieco
  261 F.2d 414· 2d Cir.· 1958-11-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the juror's allegations of pressure from another juror did not warrant a new trial, as the conduct did not rise to the level of coercion that would invalidate the verdict.
• Chicago v. Hugh Breeding, Inc.
  247 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1957-07-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the speed of the train was not negligence per se under Kansas law, but the railroad's cross-complaint presented jury questions regarding the engineer's reaction time and potential to avoid the collision after seeing the stalled truck.
• Cornell v. State OF Iowa
  628 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The majority holds that a state court judge's inquiry into the numerical division of an undischarged jury does not violate due process.
• Shibley v. United States
  237 F.2d 327· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial was fair and impartial, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Flores Amaya
  509 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions, including a time suggestion and a comment about a previous jury deliberating for nine days, went beyond the permissible limits of an Allen charge and were potentially coercive, requiring reversal.
• Ellis v. Amos E. Reed
  596 F.2d 1195· 4th Cir.· 1979-04-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the rule prohibiting inquiry into a jury's numerical division, established in Brasfield v. United States, is a rule of judicial administration for federal courts and not a constitutional requirement applicable to state trials. Therefore, a state court's inquir
• Butler v. United States
  254 F.2d 875· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while inquiring about the jury's numerical standing is plain error, it did not affect substantial rights in this case and should be disregarded.