United States v. Deane Young

MEMORANDUM

Deane and Shelia Young appeal their convictions, arguing that the district court erred by reading a supplementary Allen instruction to the jury and thereby imper-missibly coerced the jury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to give an Allen charge for abuse of discretion. United States v. Daas, 198 F.3d 1167, 1179 (9th Cir.1999). We “must uphold the district court’s decision unless the record makes it clear that the Allen charge had a coercive effect on the jury.” Id. An Allen charge has the potential for improper coercion because individual ju.rors may feel pressured to abandon sincerely held beliefs in service of reaching a verdict. See United States v. Mason, 658 F.2d 1263 , 1265 n. 1 (9th Cir.1981). Whether the court has improperly coerced a jury’s verdict is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. United States v. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2007). If defense counsel does not object to the instruction, however, we review for plain error. United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir.2008). Shelia Young’s attorney agreed that the instruction was proper, so our…