CASE NOTES - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT - UNITED STATES V GIPSON 553 F2D 453 (1977)

• NCJ Number: 54917
• Journal: Wisconsin Law Review Volume: 1978 Issue: 1 Dated: (1978) Pages: 339-350
• Author(s): S WELLMAN
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

AN APPEALS COURT DECISION IN U.S. V. GIPSON, EXPANDING THE RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT, IS EXAMINED, ALONG WITH ANALOGOUS VIEWS STEMMING FROM STATE COURT RULINGS INVOLVING MULTIACT AND CONSOLIDATED STATUTES.

Abstract

IN JUNE 1977, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DECIDED THE CASE OF U.S. V. GIPSON (1977), IN WHICH IT EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF PROTECTION GIVEN THE RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS. THE COURT HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT REQUIRES THAT JURORS BE IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT PROHIBITED ACTS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY FIND HIM GUILTY OF THE CRIME OR CRIMES CHARGED. AT ISSUE IN THE APPEAL WAS THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURORS THAT THEY COULD CONVICT IF ALL 12 AGREED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED 1 OF THE PROHIBITED ACTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT AGREE ON WHICH 1 HE HAD COMMITTED. IN REVERSING GIPSON'S CONVICTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S INSTRUCTION VIOLATED GIPSON'S CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT. THE GIPSON COURT DETERMINED THAT THE RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT REQUIRES THAT WHERE A CRIMINAL STATUTE PROVIDES A NUMBER OF WAYS OF SATISFYING THE ACUS REUS ELEMENT OF AN OFFENSE, ALL JURORS MUST FIND THAT ELEMENT PRESENT BY REACHING SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT ON THE FACTS THAT SATISFY THE ELEMENT. THE GIPSON RATIONALE SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH ANY STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS DIFFERENT ACTS OR WHICH DEFINES DIFFERENT METHODS OF COMMITTING THE SAME GENERIC CRIME. THIS POLICY WOULD NOT UNDULY INCREASE THE BURDEN OF PROSECUTION. IT WOULD NOT FORCE THE PROSECUTORS TO ELECT ONE CHARGE, OR SUBJECT THEM TO REVERSAL FOR ELECTING THE WRONG CHARGE. IT WOULD MERELY REQUIRE THEM TO PROVE THE OFFENSE CHARGED. THE ADDED INSTRUCTION WOULD NOT BURDEN THE COURT SYSTEM. AN INSTRUCTION ON THE DUTY TO AGREE ON THE SAME ACT OR THEORY OF COMMISSION COULD EASILY BE ADDED TO UNANIMITY INSTRUCTIONS NOW GIVEN. (RCB)