JENKINS
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed Jenkins's robbery conviction after the trial judge told a deadlocked jury that it "have got to reach a decision" following only two hours of deliberation, holding that the judge's statement was coercive and violated the principle that jurors cannot be pressured into abandoning conscientiously held views. The Court remanded the case for a new trial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (77 total)
-
Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1986)…with an eye towards ensuring that no false duty to decide was suggested, Nelson v. State, 438 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lincoln v. State, 364 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), that the verdict returned was not coerced, Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965), and that the instructions were “balanced,” encouraging neither acquittal nor conviction. State v. Bryan, 290 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1974); Gardner v. State, 405 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). At this point it may be…
-
Tomlinson v. State, 584 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…len charge twice is reversible error. The Court stated: Ordinarily, the general test of whether a supplemental jury instruction is in error is to consider all the circumstances to determine if the instruction was coercive. Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965). Pragmatic considerations weigh against the application of this test when an Allen charge is given more than once. A case-by-case determination would provide little, if any, guidance for a trial judge. Defe…1 / 4
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1978)…orning, this swift resolution of the issues in the face of positive prior indications of hopeless deadlock, at the very least, gives rise to serious questions in this regard. Cf. Rogers v. United States, supra, at 40-41. 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…
Previewing 3 of 77 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1926)
- Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1905)
- United States v. Rogers, 289 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1961)
- Jenkins v. United States, 330 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- United States v. Midland-Ross Corp., 379 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1964)
- Harris v. United States, 379 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1964)