UNITED STATES of America v. Robert D. HORN, Jr. and Peggy P. Horn
583 F.2d 1124 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury is not supported by 'manifest necessity' unless the judge makes a proper inquiry on the record to determine that the jury is genuinely and currently unable to reach a verdict. A retrial after such an improper declaration is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Facts:
- Robert D. Horn, Jr. was an employee of Horn Seed Company, Inc.
- On April 12, 1977, Robert Horn submitted a withholding exemption certificate to his employer.
- The certificate falsely claimed that he had incurred no income tax liability for 1976 and anticipated no liability for 1977.
- Robert Horn's wife, Peggy P. Horn, was an employee of Kerr-McGee Corporation.
- Peggy Horn submitted a similar withholding exemption certificate to her employer, also falsely claiming she had no past or anticipated tax liability.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert D. Horn, Jr., and Peggy P. Horn were indicted in federal district court for willfully submitting false tax exemption statements.
- A joint trial was held, and the case was submitted to the jury.
- On the first evening of deliberations, the jury foreman sent a note stating, 'The jury appears to be deadlocked.'
- The judge recessed for the night and, the next morning, gave the jury an 'Allen charge' to encourage a verdict.
- After the jury deliberated for approximately one more hour, the judge, acting sua sponte, declared a mistrial without inquiring into the jury's current status.
- The defendants (now appellants) argued that a second trial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and appealed 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 trial court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when the court fails to inquire whether the jury is genuinely and currently deadlocked before discharging them?
Opinions:
Majority - William E. Doyle
Yes, the trial court's declaration of a mistrial violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. For a mistrial to be declared without a defendant's consent, there must be a 'manifest necessity.' While a genuinely deadlocked jury constitutes such a necessity, the trial judge must have an objective basis for that conclusion, which cannot be based on a subjective belief or stale information. Here, the judge relied on a note from the previous evening stating the jury 'appears to be deadlocked.' After giving an Allen charge the next morning and allowing for more than an hour of further deliberation, the judge declared a mistrial without any inquiry into the jury's current status. By failing to question the foreman or the jurors as a group to determine if progress had been made or if they were truly at an impasse, the judge acted without evidence of a deadlock. This lack of inquiry on the record means the 'manifest necessity' standard was not met, and therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a retrial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high procedural bar for a court to declare a mistrial sua sponte, thereby protecting a defendant's 'valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.' It curtails judicial discretion by requiring an affirmative inquiry on the record to establish that a jury is genuinely deadlocked before it can be discharged. The ruling serves as a clear procedural guide for trial courts, mandating that the 'manifest necessity' standard be supported by objective evidence, not mere assumption. This precedent strengthens the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause against premature and unsubstantiated trial terminations.
Unlock the full brief for UNITED STATES of America v. Robert D. HORN, Jr. and Peggy P. Horn