v3243-211

and insisted that she had not answered the question.

We objected to the question as being cumulative and

the court directed the reporter to examine her notes.

The reporter stated that she did not answer the ques-

tion. This apparently was an error of the reporter

due to stress of time, etc., as the record conclusively

shows that she had answered the question. We then

withdrew the objection and she answered: (Tr. 138-

line 15) , "He said that we were ordered to render a

verdict". She then admitted (Tr. 139) on cross ex-

amination that she was not sure of exactly what was

said.

The facts here are clearly distinguishable

from the case of United States v. Rogers (CCA 4, 1961),

289 F.2d 433, as here the court gave no additional

instructions, while in the Rogers case, the following

instruction, given after the jury reported they were

hopelessly deadlocked at 4:15 P.M., and at 4:32 they

reported they had reached a verdict, was given:

"'Well, there is one other thing that I

think I should say to you. While you are

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs3243

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3243

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3243#page/n210/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

reporter, duty, answered, agree, rogers, reported, jurymen, arrive, withdrew, views, sure, stubbornly, stress, sincere, shut

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

sincere effort, rogers cca, hopelessly deadlocked, fellow jurymen, common conclusion., clearly distinguishable, careful consideration, additional instructions, 1961 289

Document Status: UGLY