Jenkins v. United States, 761
| Decision Date | 05 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 761,761 |
| Citation | 380 U.S. 445,85 S.Ct. 1059,13 L.Ed.2d 957 |
| Parties | Melvin C. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
H. Thomas Sisk, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Philip B. Heymann, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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, 85 S.Ct. 442, 13 L.Ed.2d 542, 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, 47 S.Ct. 135, 136, 71 L.Ed. 345; Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 307 308, 25 S.Ct. 243, 250, 49 L.Ed. 482; United States v. Rogers, 289 F.2d 433, 435 (C.A.4th Cir.)
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stankowski
...concurring specially); Jenkins v. United States, 330 F.2d 220, 222 (D.C. Cir. (1964) ) (Wright, J., dissenting), rev'd, 380 U.S. 445, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965); Green v. United States, 309 F.2d 852, 856 (5th Cir. (1962) ).... While a defendant is not entitled to an instruction th......
-
State v. Ralls
...Jenkins v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 330 F.2d 220, 222 (Wright, J., dissenting), rev'd, 380 U.S. [167 Conn. 422] 445, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957; Green v. United States,309 F.2d 852, 856 (5th Cir.). For a judge to tell a jury that a case must be decided and that a mistrial wou......
-
Phan v. Haviland
...must be viewed in its context and under all of the circumstances of the case to determine whether it was coercive. See Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446 (1965). Coerciveness is evaluated using the following factors: (1) the form of the instruction; (2) the period of deliberation f......
-
Phan v. Haviland
...must be viewed in its context and under all of the circumstances of the case to determine whether it was coercive. See Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446 (1965). Coerciveness is evaluated using the following factors: (1) the form of the instruction; (2) the period of deliberation f......
-
Table of cases
...719 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982) 6:190 Jeffers v. State 646 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) 11:490 Jenkins v. State 380 U.S. 445 (1965) Jenkins v. State 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) 1:350 Jennings v. State 302 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) 1:375 Jimenez v. S......
-
Trials
...day to continue deliberations to reach verdict because instruction gave jury no choice but to reach verdict). 1842. See Jenkins v. U.S., 380 U.S. 445, 446 (1965) (per curiam) (appropriate inquiry is whether “in its context and under all the circumstances,” modified Allen charge is coercive......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1977-1978
...that the judge wanted a verdict, one way or another. This type of direction to a jury is reversible error. Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965). The instruction as to the requirements for establishing withdrawal from the conspiracy was found to be unnecessarily confining. The Court......
-
Georgia Death Penalty Law - Mike Mears and Ken Driggs
...24 (1999). 103. 270 Ga. at 835-39, 514 S.E.2d at 430-33. 104. Id. at 837, 514 S.E.2d at 432. 105. Id. (citing to Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446 (1965)). 106. Id. at 838, 514 S.E.2d at 432. 107. Id. 108. Id. at 846-47, 514 S.E.2d at 438-40. 109. 270 Ga. at 789, 514 S.E.2d at 214......