U.S. v. Skinner
| Decision Date | 19 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1322,76-1322 |
| Citation | 535 F.2d 325 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Elvis SKINNER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David A. Miller, Dallas, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Judith A. Shepherd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, CLARK and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, James Skinner, Jr., contends that the district court's modified Allen Charge 1 contained impermissibly coercive language which compels reversal of his conviction. After the most careful consideration of the Allen Charge and the context in which it was presented in this case, we have concluded that its use here was not so prejudicial as to deprive appellant of a fair trial and a unanimous verdict based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In his supplemental charge to the jury, the district court judge carefully avoided the pitfalls of coercive deadlines, threats of marathon deliberations, or pressure for surrender of conscientiously held minority views. 2 We cannot, in this case, find that the district court judge spoke erroneously. 3
AFFIRMED.
2 The following is the text of the judge's charge:
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a note from you signed by Mr. Miller, and I would like to instruct you further as follows in the hopes that it will be helpful to you in your deliberations.
You should endeavor to reach an agreement if at all possible. Some jury sometime will have to decide this case.
The case has been tried out very ably by both sides, and all the available evidence has been adduced before you. It seems to me that you ought to make every effort to arrive at a unanimous verdict and to reach a conclusion.
Of course, the verdict of the jury must represent the opinion of each individual juror, but it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room.
The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by comparison of views and by arguments among the jurors themselves.
Each juror should listen with deference to the arguments of the other jurors and with a distrust of his own judgment if he finds the large majority of the jury takes a different view than the view he takes.
No juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict should represent his opinion of the case at that moment or that he should close his ears to the argument of other jurors who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Town of Flower Mound
... ... at 388, 98 S.Ct. at 1121 ... While Mallis thus permits us to take jurisdiction, it does not require us to do so. 1 Mallis makes it clear that we do not lack power to hear appeals from orders disposing of ... ...
-
U.S. v. Garcia
... ... Skinner, 535 F.2d 325 (5th Cir.1976) ... Page 1228 ... (per curiam), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1048, 97 S.Ct. 756, 50 L.Ed.2d 762 (1977), we hold use of the ... The Fourth Amendment, however, requires us to test this stop in a different manner ... See also United States v. Melendez-Gonzalez, 727 F.2d 407, 412 (5th Cir.1984). Thus, I am unable to ... ...
-
U.S. v. Thomas
...could not be reached. At that point he gave only a modified form of the "Allen " charge, within the guidelines of United States v. Skinner, 5 Cir. 1976, 535 F.2d 325. (Tr. 480). No deadlines were set and the jury was warned not to surrender honest convictions for the sake of reaching unanim......
-
United States v. Eghobor
...of conscientiously held minority views." United States v. Scruggs, 583 F.2d 238, 240 (5th Cir.1978) (quoting United States v. Skinner, 535 F.2d 325, 326 (5th Cir.1976) ). In this case, Eghobor argues that the district court improperly deviated from the language of the pattern Allen charge b......