Human Smuggling—Convictions and Jury Instructions

A day after telling the court they were deadlocked, a federal jury has convicted three people “in the nation’s deadliest human smuggling attempt, in which 19 people died after being left inside an airtight truck trailer.”^[1] Victor Sanchez Rodriguez was convicted on eight counts of harboring and nine counts of transporting illegal immigrants; his wife, Emma Sapata Rodriguez, was found guilty of eight counts of harboring and six counts of transporting; he half-sister, Rosa Sarrata Gonzalez, was convicted of one count of harboring.^[2] Each was acquitted of other counts.^[3] Tyrone Williams, the driver of the truck, in which 70 immigrants were found, is the only one who is facing the death penalty; he was convicted in March, and we discussed his appeal almost a month ago.

The jury took more than 13 hours over four days to deliberate on the case, and when they notified the court that they were deadlocked, they may have received an Allen charge telling them to come to an agreement if at all possible.^[4] We discussed Allen charges yesterday, and the jury in the trial of Cendant Chairman Walter Forbes in Connecticut received one on January 5; deliberations in that trial have been suspended on the 26th day of deliberations because of the jurors “had done ‘background research.’”^[5]

A number of circuits post pattern Allen charges on their websites. For example, the First Circuit’s “Charge to a Hung Jury” states in part:

In trials absolute certainty can be neither expected nor attained. You should consider that you are selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be selected. There is no reason to suppose that this case would ever be submitted to 12 men and women more intelligent, more impartial or more competent to decide it than you, or that more or clearer evidence would be produced in the future.
…
In conferring together you ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions and you ought to listen with a mind open to being convinced by each other's arguments. Thus, where there is disagreement, jurors favoring acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own mind is a reasonable one when it makes no impression upon the minds of the other equally honest and intelligent jurors who have heard the same evidence with the same degree of attention and with the same desire to arrive at the truth under the sanction of the same oath.

On the other hand, jurors favoring conviction ought seriously to ask themselves whether they should not distrust the weight or sufficiency of evidence which fails to dispel reasonable doubt in the minds of the other jurors.

Not only should jurors in the minority re-examine their positions, but jurors in the majority should do so also, to see whether they have given careful consideration and sufficient weight to the evidence that has favorably impressed the persons in disagreement with them.

Some other circuits have made their pattern jury instructions available online:
Fifth Circuit
Sixth Circuit
Seventh Circuit
Eighth Circuit
Ninth Circuit
Tenth Circuit (Available Soon)
Eleventh Circuit

---

[1] Juan A. Lozano, Three Convicted in Immigrant’s Deaths, Associated Press (via Forbes.com), Feb. 8, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Cendant Judge Stops Forbes Deliberations, Rejects a Mistrial, Bloomberg, Feb. 7, 2006.