Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JA M ES B RO WN H EN D ER SO N,
Petitioner-A ppellant,
v.
No. 06-5185
(N .D. of Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
O R D E R D E N Y IN G C E R T IF IC A T E O F A PP E A L A B IL IT Y *
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 (eff. Dec.
1, 2006) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2007).
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
(...continued)
This claim was not raised to the district court and therefore is not properly before
us on appeal. We deem it waived and do not address it.
-3-
reddish-colored fiber that had not been admitted at trial. The district court
found the extraneous materials did not affect the jurys decision and based on our
review of the record, we agree. The trial court polled the jurors and they
unanimously answ ered that (1) they neither view ed nor discussed the materials in
their deliberations, and (2) it had no influence on their deliberations. The record,
moreover, discloses only one juror actually viewed the materials, the jury never
discussed the significance of the materials during their deliberations, and, finally,
the materials did not bear on a contested issue of fact at trial.
In sum, we agree with the district court that the OCCA did not
unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in denying Hendersons challenge to
the jurys verdict.
3. Coercion of Jury Through Allen Instruction
An Allen instruction, taken from Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492,
50102 (1896), is given to a jury:
to encourage unanimity (without infringement upon the conscientious
views of each individual juror) by urging each juror to review and
reconsider the evidence in the light of the views expressed by other
jurors, in a manner evincing a conscientious search for truth rather than
a dogged determination to have ones own way in the outcome of the
deliberative process.
United States v. Smith, 857 F.2d 682, 68384 (10th Cir. 1988).
An Allen instruction cannot be impermissibly coercive. United States v.
Porter, 881 F.2d 878, 888 (10th Cir. 1989). In reviewing whether an Allen
-4-
-5-