Jenkins v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 380 U.S. 445, 13 L. Ed. 2d 957, 85 S. Ct. 1059, SCDB 1964-073, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1484

Decision Date: 4/5/1965

Docket Number: No. 761

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 13 L. Ed. 2d 957, 85 S. Ct. 1059, SCDB 1964-073, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1484 (1965)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1965

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 329 decisions

329

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

9th Cir.42

6th Cir.23

Tex. App.15

4th Cir.13

Ill. App. Ct.12

D.C.11

Most recently cited by10

2026Michael Alamia v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Austin
2026El Pueblo De Puerto Rico v. Vega Figueroa, Hector Antonio
2026United States v. Philip Epps 3rd Cir.
2025State v. Larry Threadgill R.I.
2025Thompson Bullock v. Black N.D. Ohio
2025Donald Wayne McDowell v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
2025United States v. Sadovsky 9th Cir.
2025Bryant Kentrell Dotson v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
2025Peo v. Ewing Colo. Ct. App.
2024United States v. Terrell Armstead D.C. Cir.

Cites 4 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

JENKINS v. UNITED STATES.

Judges

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent.

Attorneys

H. Thomas Sisk argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were M. Michael Cramer and David B. Isbell.
Philip B. Heymann argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Philip R. Monahan.

majority Per Curiam.

Petitioner was charged in a two-count indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with robbing a High’s Dairy Products store on December 27, 1962 (count 1), and with assault with intent to rob upon the proprietress of a grocery store on January 24, 1963 (count 2), in violation of §§ 22-2901 and 22-501, respectively, of the District of Columbia Code. Following a trial by jury, he was found guilty on count 1 and not guilty on count 2. He was sentenced to imprisonment for from 3 to 10 years. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 117 U. S. App. D. C. 346, 330 F. 2d 220. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, four judges dissenting.

Slightly more than two hours after the jury retired to deliberate, the jury sent a note to the trial judge advising that it had been unable to agree upon a verdict “on both counts because of insufficient evidence.” The judge thereupon recalled the jury to the courtroom and in the course of his response stated that “You have got to reach a decision in this case.” We granted certiorari, 379 U. S. 944, to consider whether in its context and under all the circumstances of this case the statement was coercive. The Solicitor General in his brief in this Court stated:

“Of course, if this Court should conclude that the judge’s statement had the coercive effect attributed to it, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial; the principle that jurors may not be coerced into surrendering views conscientiously held is so clear as to require no elaboration.”

Upon review of the record, we conclude that in its context and under all the circumstances the judge’s statement had the coercive effect attributed to it. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Cf. Brasfield v. United States, 272 U. S. 448, 450; Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 307-308; United States v. Rogers, 289 F. 2d 433, 435 (C. A. 4th Cir.)

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent.