United States v. Della Porta

Good Law
653 F.3d 1043·2011 WL 3437033·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16341
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 8, 201110-50168California4,557 words

Opinion

Opinion

Silverman, J.

In United States v. Evanston, we recently held that a district court abuses its discretion and impermissibly coerces a jury verdict where, “over defense objection and after the administration of an unsuccessful Allen charge, [the court] inquire[s] into the reasons for a trial jury’s deadlock and then permit[s] supplemental argument focused on those issues, where the issues in dispute are factual rather than legal.” 651 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir.2011). In this case we also address the use of supplemental closing arguments to assist a deadlocked jury, but under significantly different circumstances: where the district court never gave an Allen charge and never inquired into the reasons for the jury deadlock. We hold today that under these circumstances, unlike those at issue in Evanston, the district court’s decision to permit supplemental closing argument did not result in impermissible coercion and did not constitute an abuse of discretion meriting reversal. Nor do we find any plain error in the district court’s jury instructions.

I. BACKGROUND

Between 1996 and 2006, Rosa Della Porta worked as a bookkeeper for the International Longshoremen’s and Warehouse-men’s Union…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.