Skip to main content

United States v. Evanston: no re-arguing during jury delibrations

In U.S. v. Evanston, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated a district court’s judgment because it allowed attorneys on both sides to re-address arguments after the jury declared its second deadlock. Calvin Evanston was charged with assault on his live-in girlfriend, leaving her with permanent damages on her face. The jury was unsure about the witness’s credibility and how the victim’s injuries were caused. Despite the defense’s objection to this order and two jury deadlocks, the judge gave both sides the opportunity to reargue the issues that were uncertain to the jury. Shortly after, the jury deliberated and reached a guilty verdict.


The court of appeals found the order for additional arguments as an interference with the jury’s role as the sole fact-finder. First, the jury’s deliberative secrecy was violated when they revealed to the judge that they were inconclusive about two particular issues. Secondly, additional arguments from both sides along with the judge insisting to continue after a second deadlock raised speculation of a coerced verdict.

The district court could have explored other options to overcome the two deadlocks without coming into conflict with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Ninth Circuit model jury instructions. For instance, rereading the original jury instructions or allowing the jury to review the witness’s testimony would have complied with the procedural rules.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court allowed the attorneys to address and reargue factual concerns expressed by the jury, causing prejudicial error in Evanston’s case. This gave cause for the court of appeals to vacate Evanston’s conviction and remand the action for a new trial.

The case is: United States v. Evanston (9th Cir. July 5, 2011) 10-10159.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Second Circuit Holds that Personal Benefit is Not Required for Insider Trading

Insider trading, or “ securities fraud ,” is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1348 and 15 U.S.C. § 10(b) As the Supreme Court explained in Dirks v. SEC , someone engages in insider trading under §10(b) if they breach a fiduciary duty by disclosing material, nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit. However, the Second Circuit’s recent holding in United States v. Blaszczak rejected this personal benefit requirement, at least as it relates to § 1348. The result? The range of conduct that triggers criminal liability under § 1348 is far bigger than the range of conduct that triggers liability under § 10(b). Stated another way, Blaszczak makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after Title 18 securities fraud because - unlike Title 15 securities fraud - they do no need to prove the existence of a personal benefit.
Post a Comment
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Rules for Miranda Warning

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer . Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which six other Justices joined in full. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. The Court held that a fourteen-day break in custodial interrogation ends the Edwards v. Arizona rule which states that once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary and is the result of coercion. In reversing the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court concluded that Shatzer’s return to his normal pre-interrogation life in the general prison population for a period of two-and-one-half years before re-interrogation constituted a sufficient break in custody enable him to voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Therefore, the Edwards case did not require that Shatzer’s re-interrogation statements be suppressed, and the Court remanded the case ...
Post a Comment
Read more

California Supreme Court Narrows Exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Requirement

On November 25, 2019, the California Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Lopez holds “that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” People v. Lopez , No. S238627, 2019 WL 6267367, at *1 (Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). Before Lopez , police were “allowed … to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide … personal identification upon request.” Id . The Court summarized the facts of Lopez as follows: police “responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving.” Police were “(u)nable to locate the vehicle,” so they “asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate.” Police “then drove by the address where the car was registered,” but didn’t see a car matching the description. As such, p...
Post a Comment
Read more