United States v. Ronder
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
639 F.2d 931 (1981)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Charles Ronder (defendant) was charged with conspiracy to falsify tax returns. The case went to a jury. The jury sent a note to the judge reporting that the jury was deadlocked. The judge did not disclose the note to counsel for either party or ask counsel for their views of the note. The judge instructed the jury concerning each party’s interest in resolving the case but deviated from the standard Allen charge—the judge’s typical instruction to a deadlocked jury to keep deliberating and for the jurors to reconsider their positions and not to surrender their personal convictions merely to achieve consensus. Defense counsel told the judge that the judge’s statement to the jury could suggest that the government’s interest in resolving the trial was meritorious while the defendant’s interest was personal. Defense counsel also noted the judge’s failure to use standard language cautioning the jury not to abandon their convictions in order to reach a verdict. The judge received a second jury note informing the judge that the jury had made progress but that one juror was refusing to address the issues and felt badgered by fellow jurors and a third jury note asking for clarification of the legal standards involved in the charges. The judge told counsel of the contents of the second note but refused to read the note to counsel. The judge did not inform counsel of the third note. The judge denied a motion by defense counsel for a mistrial. The judge gave the jury a new Allen charge in response to the second note and addressed the questions raised in the third note. After the jury was dismissed, defense counsel asked the judge to give the jury a fuller explanation of key legal terms, but the judge refused. Then, the judge allowed counsel to read the second and third notes. Neither counsel requested further jury instructions. The jury found Ronder guilty. Ronder appealed on the grounds that the judge had failed to afford defense counsel the opportunity to see the notes submitted by the jury and suggest responses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.