United States v. Echeverry

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 719 F.2d 974

Decision Date: 1/31/1983

Docket Number: No. 81-1630

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: United States v. Echeverry, 719 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1983)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 1983

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 103 decisions

103

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

9th Cir.63

Haw.5

3d Cir.4

Mont.4

10th Cir.3

N.J.3

Most recently cited by10

2023United States v. Robert Beal 9th Cir.
2021State v. C. Wells Mont.
2020United States v. Tuan Luong 9th Cir.
2018United States v. Gonzalez 3rd Cir.
2015State v. V.W. Ohio Ct. App.
2015United States v. Gonzalez 9th Cir.
2015United States v. Lapier 9th Cir.
2015State v. Boyd Ohio Ct. App.
2013United States v. Ruiz 9th Cir.
2013United States v. Newson 9th Cir.

Cites 6 cases

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

Opinion

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claret ECHEVERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

Judges

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, TUT-TLE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

Attorneys

Daniel H. Smith, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
David Marshal, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.

majority

The opinion, 698 F.2d 375, is modified by adding the following paragraphs:

The trial judge did give to the jury a single general instruction that their verdict had to be unanimous. This court has held that in a routine case when a jury is presented with multiple counts or schemes, it may be possible to protect the defendant’s right to an unanimous jury verdict by such a general instruction. See United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1983) (a general unanimity instruction suffices when a case involving multiple acts within one count of an indictment is sufficiently clear in its presentation so that unanimity can be presumed); United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.1971) (the jury must be presumed to have followed the unanimity instruction and all agreed to at least one of several possible conspiracies even though no specific instruction was given to that effect); Vitello v. United States, 425 F.2d 416 (9th Cir.1970). See also United States v. Natelli, 527 F.2d 311 (2d Cir. 1975).

When it appears, however, that there is a genuine possibility of jury confusion or that a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice. To correct any potential confusion in such a case, the trial judge must augment the general instruction to ensure the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts. Such circumstances are certainly present in this case. The jury’s written questions indicated their confusion concerning multiple conspiracies and should have alerted the trial judge to the potential for a nonunanimous verdict. See United States v. Mastelotto, 717 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir.1983) (variance between the proof at trial and the indictment in a ease involving multiple schemes to defraud presents such a potential for juror confusion that special unanimity instructions are required).

The Petition for rehearing is denied.