United States v. Arney
56 Fed. R. Serv. 1277, 248 F.3d 984, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2102 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A supplemental jury instruction, known as an Allen charge, given to a deadlocked jury is not impermissibly coercive if, under the totality of the circumstances, its language encourages all jurors to reconsider their positions without surrendering their conscientious convictions.
Facts:
- David L. Arney was involved in a lawsuit against Koch Oil Company following an oil spill on his property in 1989.
- Between 1990 and 1993, Arney applied for and secured lines of credit from two banks.
- To obtain the credit, Arney submitted documents to the banks that purported to be his federal income tax returns, which reflected an inflated income.
- At the time he submitted these documents to the banks, Arney had not actually filed his tax returns with the IRS for those years.
- Arney claimed he intentionally delayed filing his tax returns as a legal strategy to avoid disclosing his financial information to Koch Oil during their litigation.
- Arney argued the financial information in the documents provided to the banks was materially correct and that discrepancies with his subsequently filed returns resulted from a good-faith mistake regarding different accounting methods.
Procedural Posture:
- David L. Arney was indicted on four counts of bank fraud in the U.S. District Court.
- Arney's first trial in October 1999 resulted in a hung jury, prompting the district court to declare a mistrial.
- A retrial commenced on December 6, 1999.
- During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge stating that it was unable to reach a unanimous decision.
- In response, the district court gave the jury a supplemental 'Allen' instruction and ordered it to continue deliberating.
- The jury subsequently returned a verdict finding Arney guilty on all four counts.
- Arney (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court commit reversible error by giving a supplemental 'modified Allen' instruction to a jury after it has announced it is deadlocked, where the instruction urges all jurors to reconsider the evidence but also to not surrender their conscientious convictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Tacha, Chief Judge
No. A 'modified Allen' instruction given to a deadlocked jury does not constitute reversible error if it is not impermissibly coercive under the totality of the circumstances. The court analyzed the instruction using a multi-factor test, considering: (1) the language of the instruction, (2) its timing, (3) its context, and (4) the length of subsequent deliberations. The court found the language was not coercive because it was a 'modified' charge, addressed to all jurors rather than just the minority, and it explicitly cautioned jurors not to surrender their 'conscientious convictions.' Although the preferred practice is to give the instruction before deliberations begin, giving it after a deadlock is not a per se error. The court also found that the timing (late afternoon) and the short duration of subsequent deliberations (about an hour) did not, in this context, create a coercive environment. Therefore, the district court's use of the Allen charge was a proper exercise of its duty to guide the jury.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Tenth Circuit's flexible, case-by-case approach to evaluating the coerciveness of an Allen charge. The decision emphasizes the importance of a 'modified' instruction that directs all jurors, not just the minority, to reconsider their views, which significantly reduces the potential for coercion. It affirms that while giving the charge after a jury declares a deadlock is disfavored, it is not automatically reversible error, thereby granting trial judges considerable discretion in managing deadlocked juries. This precedent serves as a guide for trial courts on how to craft and time such instructions to withstand appellate scrutiny.
