Jury Coercion

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

• United States ex rel. Rico Latimore & Arthur Vesey v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  561 F.2d 691· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 23×
  The trial judge's refusal to communicate with the jury and provide sleeping facilities coerced the jury into reaching a verdict, denying the defendants a fair trial.
• Johnson v. Dugger
  817 F.2d 726· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the trial court's alleged errors did not render the petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair.
• United States v. Spitz
  696 F.2d 916· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that continuing to poll the jury after a juror indicated dissent from the verdict constitutes reversible error.
• Potter v. United States
  691 F.2d 1275· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the supplemental Allen charge given to the jury was coercive due to substantive departures from approved language, specifically the omission of the burden of proof and the requirement for the majority to reexamine their position.
• United States v. Americo DI Pietto
  396 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1968-05-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the money orders, when completed with false information and transported, constituted "falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited" securities under 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The court also found no reversible error in the jury instructions, communication with the
• Ralls v. Manson
  503 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-05 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a state prisoner's pending direct appeal to the state Supreme Court, even with delays, means he has not exhausted state remedies as required for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Lucien v. Amos
  496 F.2d 1269· 8th Cir.· 1974-05-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial judge's actions during the jury poll and reconsideration did not coerce the verdict, and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence and jury instructions were proper or harmless error.
• United States v. D'Antonio
  801 F.2d 979· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the prosecutor's remarks were not prejudicial, the refusal to seek immunity was not an abuse of discretion, and the judge's communication to the jury did not coerce the verdict.
• United States v. Seawell
  583 F.2d 416· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 20×
  The concurring judge agrees with the majority's conclusion that the Allen charge is proper absent unusual circumstances of coercion.
• United States v. Carless Russell Barnhill
  305 F.2d 164· 6th Cir.· 1962-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the supplemental jury instruction was not coercive and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on witness testimony.
• United States v. Blevinal
  607 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's supplemental jury instruction was not impermissibly coercive and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. LEE
  532 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-22 ·cited 18×
  A jury's note requesting leniency accompanying a guilty verdict does not invalidate the verdict if the jurors unequivocally affirm the guilty verdict when polled.
• Weathers v. United States
  126 F.2d 118· 5th Cir.· 1942-02-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of certain letters and evidence of state law violations was proper, and the jury charge on agreement was not coercive, affirming the conviction.
• Webb v. State
  519 So. 2d 748· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-02-10 ·cited 17×
  Michael Webb was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree after a jury received a modified Allen charge and subsequently delivered a guilty verdict within minutes. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court's statements to th
• United States v. Kramer
  955 F.2d 479· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed convictions, but the concurring opinion expressed concerns about the circuit's rule on admitting other-crimes evidence when intent is not disputed.
• Erick Orlando Locks v. G.W. Sumner
  703 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state trial judge's inquiry into the numerical division of the jury is not a constitutional violation requiring habeas relief, and that Fourth Amendment claims are barred in habeas proceedings under Stone v. Powell if a full and fair hearing was provided.
• United States v. Nelson
  692 F.2d 83· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district judge errs in accepting a jury verdict when a juror dissents during polling, as this violates Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(d) and due process.
• Bryan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  511 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the supplemental jury instruction, including a time limit, did not rise to the level of unconstitutional coercion, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• United States v. Betancourt
  427 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Allen charge was not coercive under the circumstances, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it, and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to the manifest listing requirement in this context.
• Darby v. United States
  283 F.2d 896· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prosecutor's use of a 'rap sheet' and cross-examination regarding prior convictions, even without proof of those convictions, did not constitute reversible error.
• Osius v. State
  96 Fla. 318· Fla.· 1928-07-24 ·cited 16×
  Fred Osius was convicted of manslaughter for negligent driving that resulted in deaths on the Miami causeway. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial, finding that the trial judge's improper instructions about post-verdict recommendations for mercy and punishme
• United States v. Ellzey
  936 F.2d 492· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a witness regarding pending state charges was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and that prosecutorial misconduct and the giving of an Allen instruction did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Williams
  873 F.2d 1102· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ordering the jury to continue deliberations after one juror expressed doubts during polling, as the trial court has discretion in such matters and no improper conduct occurred.
• United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
  550 F.2d 115· 3d Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge's private conference with the jury foreman, which conveyed the impression that a verdict was required, coerced the jury and necessitates reversal of the convictions.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Hernandez
  476 F.2d 791· 3d Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Brooks
  420 F.2d 1350· D.C. Cir.· 1969-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the conviction should be affirmed because the trial judge acted within his discretion in handling jury deliberations and ensuring a unanimous verdict.
• Richard v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  853 F.2d 1258· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that resubmitting a jury verdict form for reconsideration of answers, even if potentially inconsistent, is within the trial judge's discretion, provided there is no view of the case that makes the answers consistent.
• United States v. Heath
  970 F.2d 1397· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that two counts of bank fraud were multiplicitous, requiring remand for the government to choose one count. The remaining convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Ajiboye
  961 F.2d 892· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Allen charge was not impermissibly coercive because the judge did not know the identities of the holdout jurors, and other factors did not suggest coercion. The court also affirmed the sentencing enhancement for abuse of a position of trust.
• United States v. Paul Lash (90-1449)
  937 F.2d 1077· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that defendants Lash and Tommasi effectively withdrew from the conspiracy more than six years prior to the indictment, thus barring prosecution on statute of limitations grounds.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Romain
  600 F.2d 435· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a trial judge's inquiry into the numerical division of a deadlocked jury constitutes reversible error, even if not objected to by counsel.
• United States v. Noah
  594 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that inquiring about the numerical division of a deliberating jury constitutes plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Prentiss
  446 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge's actions, including questioning the jury's numerical division and giving an Allen charge, did not coerce the jury or prejudice the defendant's right to a fair verdict.
• United States v. Fiorilla
  850 F.2d 172· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 10×
  A trial judge has discretion to continue a jury poll after a juror dissents if the circumstances demonstrate no coercion of the dissenting juror.
• United States v. Bonam
  772 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Allen charge, despite including comments about trial expense and the possibility of retrial, was not coercive under the specific circumstances of this case and therefore did not require reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Cassasa
  588 F.2d 282· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's prior remarks did not warrant disqualification, the exclusion of composite pictures was not an abuse of discretion, and communications with the jury were harmless error. The court also found that the jury instructions and the handling of jury
• United States v. Smith
  562 F.2d 619· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant the opportunity to present evidence rebutting the stenographic record or in sending the jury back for further deliberations after a juror expressed uncertainty during the poll.
• United States ex rel. Eddie Lee Anthony v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  552 F.2d 588· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's communication with the jury, specifically the polling that created a time reference for deliberation, amounted to coercion and violated the petitioner's right to an uncoerced verdict.
• United States v. Smoot
  463 F.2d 1221· D.C. Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's actions, including the modified Allen charge and the inquiry to the jury regarding potential agreement on a lesser included offense, were not prejudicially coercive and did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Freedson
  608 F.2d 739· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and that the trial court did not err in refusing an entrapment instruction or in sending the jury back for further deliberations.
• Thomas v. State
  348 So. 2d 634· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a bailiff improperly instructing a deadlocked jury constitutes reversible error, even if the judge later gives a proper instruction.
• Cindle v. Page
  424 F.2d 509· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-22 ·cited 8×
  The federal court must independently assess constitutional claims of state prisoners, even if state courts have ruled on them.
• Jacobs v. United States
  279 F.2d 826· 8th Cir.· 1960-06-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a trial judge's inquiry into the numerical division of a jury, followed by a supplemental charge, is coercive and prejudicial error when it reveals the existence of a minority, requiring reversal.
• Hagans v. United States
  261 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1958-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its handling of the jury or in its rulings regarding the evidence and charges, and that any errors were not sufficient to require reversal.
• Gresham v. United States
  232 F.2d 927· 9th Cir.· 1956-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's contention that jury instructions coerced a verdict lacked merit.
• Bord v. United States
  133 F.2d 313· D.C. Cir.· 1942-08-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for housebreaking and larceny, and that the trial court's instructions and conduct were not erroneous.
• United States v. Feekes
  879 F.2d 1562· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed convictions but vacated sentences, remanding for resentencing because the district judge improperly believed the federal sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional.
• Watson v. State OF Ala.
  841 F.2d 1074· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial judge's supplemental instruction to the jury to reach a unanimous verdict was not coercive under the totality of the circumstances, and thus did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• Nottage v. State
  15 So. 3d 46· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-05-20 ·cited 6×
  Anthony Nottage appeals his conviction on multiple charges, arguing the trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after giving an Allen charge when the jury indicated deadlock. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that under the totality of circums
• United States v. Martinez-Perez
  941 F.2d 295· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the search and seizure, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.