Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Rogers

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
289 F.2d 433 (1961)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A supplemental jury instruction to a deadlocked jury, known as an Allen charge, is prejudicially coercive and requires a new trial if it urges jurors to reach an agreement without also reminding them that they should not surrender their conscientiously held convictions.


Facts:

  • The defendant, Rogers, at his brother's request, took a payroll check for $97.92 to a bank.
  • Rogers was instructed to deposit $80 into his brother's account and receive the balance of $17.92 in cash.
  • An inexperienced bank teller misread the check's date (12 06 59) as the face amount of the check ($1,206.59).
  • After deducting the $80 deposit from this mistaken amount, the teller placed $1,126.59 in cash on the counter.
  • Rogers took the $1,126.59 from the counter and left the bank.
  • At the end of the day, the teller's accounts were short by $1,108.67, the exact amount of the overpayment.
  • Rogers later contended that he only received the correct amount of $17.92.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States prosecuted Rogers in a federal district court under the bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(b).
  • The case was tried before a jury.
  • After deliberating for approximately four hours, the jury reported to the court that it was unable to reach an agreement.
  • The trial judge then gave the jury a supplemental instruction regarding its duty to agree upon a verdict.
  • Seventeen minutes later, the jury returned a verdict convicting Rogers.
  • Rogers (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging both the jury instruction and the sufficiency of the evidence for larceny.

Locked

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 supplemental jury instruction to a deadlocked jury that urges jurors to reach an agreement, but omits the admonition that no juror should surrender a conscientiously held conviction, constitute a coercive charge requiring a new trial?


Opinions:

Majority - Haynsworth, Circuit Judge

Yes, a supplemental jury instruction that only emphasizes the duty to agree without also reminding jurors not to surrender their sincere convictions is coercive and requires a new trial. The standard 'Allen charge' is permissible because it is balanced; it admonishes jurors to re-examine their views in light of their fellows' opinions but also makes it clear that a verdict must represent the final judgment of each juror, not mere acquiescence to a majority. The instruction given here was one-sided, omitting the crucial reminder that jurors should not abandon their well-founded convictions. The coercive effect is indicated by the jury's swift reversal from being 'unable to reach an agreement' to reaching a verdict only seventeen minutes after receiving the incomplete instruction. This short interval suggests the minority surrendered to the majority rather than engaging in a re-examination of their views. For the purposes of a retrial, the court also clarified the law of larceny under the bank robbery statute. It held that to convict for larceny by mistake, the prosecution must prove the defendant knew he was receiving an overpayment at the moment of taking and formed the intent to convert the money at that same moment. An intent to convert formed after an innocent receipt of the property is not sufficient for common law larceny.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strict requirements for a permissible 'Allen charge,' establishing that the balancing language—reminding jurors not to surrender conscientious convictions—is an essential, non-optional component. The ruling creates a strong precedent that a one-sided instruction urging agreement, especially when followed by a rapid verdict from a previously deadlocked jury, is presumptive evidence of coercion warranting a new trial. The opinion is also significant for its clarification of federal larceny, holding that the 'trespassory taking' element can be met in cases of mistaken delivery only if the recipient has guilty knowledge and intent at the very moment of receipt, thereby distinguishing the crime from subsequent conversion.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Rogers (1961) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Rogers