Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. D.C. No. CR-92-124-01-JLQ. Justin L. Quackenbush, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Before: Wallace, Chief Judge, Wright and Noonan, Circuit Judges.
Yusuf Reeves appeals his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We address his arguments about the briefcase search in a separate, published opinion. Here, we affirm the district court's denial of his motions for mistrial and for a new trial.
The trial began on August 10, 1992. Jury deliberations began on August 11. In the late afternoon of August 12, the jury sent the court a note indicating a deadlock at 11 to 1. The court instructed the jury as permitted by Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), using modified language requested by defense counsel. Ten minutes later the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Reeves moved for a mistrial, or a new trial. The district court denied the motion.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions for a mistrial, United States v. Davis, 932 F.2d 752, 761 (9th Cir. 1991), and for a new trial, United States v. Aichele, 942 F.2d 761, 765 (9th Cir. 1991).
We examine an Allen charge "'in its context and under all the circumstances' to see if it had a coercive effect upon the jury." United States v. Beattie, 613 F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446 (1965)). We note that the charge was not impermissibly premature. See id. The jury had expressly told the court that it was deadlocked.
The four prevailing circumstantial indicators of verdict coercion from an Allen charge are:
(1) whether the content of the charge given was more coercive than that approved of in Allen;
(2) how long the jury deliberated after receiving the charge before returning its verdict;
(3) the total amount of time the jury deliberated on the case, both before and after receiving the charge; and
(4) other indicia of coerciveness.