Supreme Court of the United States, 1965

Jenkins v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 5, 1965 · Clark, Harlan

380 U.S. 445; 85 S. Ct. 1059; 13 L. Ed. 2d 957; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1484 (United States Reports)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

377 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Ralls (Conn. 1974)
Ortiz v. Duckworth (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1980)
Jerome Henderson, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Terry L. Collins, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee (6th Cir. 2001)
Fields v. State (Alaska 1971)
William Packer v. Don Hill, Warden Attorney General of the State of California (9th Cir. 2002)
Harvey Lee Green, Jr. v. James B. French, Warden, Central Prison (4th Cir. 1998)
United States v. Burl A. Sawyers, Vincent J. Johnkoski, Bonn Brown, Alfred W. Schroath (4th Cir. 1970)
R.B. Williams v. Al C. Parke, Warden (6th Cir. 1984)
Gregorio Jiminez v. E.R. Myers, Warden, Attorney General of California (9th Cir. 1994)
United States v. Derrick Trelayne Spann, A/K/A Kalan Kurney, Derrick Thomas and Kalin Andre Spann, United States of America v. Horace Craig Stephens (D.C. Cir. 1993)
United States v. John Jay Beattie (9th Cir. 1980)
John Joseph Walsh v. United States (9th Cir. 1967)
Lowenfield v. Phelps (Supreme Court of the United States 1988)
Bruce E. Ellis v. Amos E. Reed, Secretary of Corrections, and the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina (4th Cir. 1979)
United States of America Ex Rel. Rico Latimore and Arthur Vesey v. Allyn R. Sielaff, Etc. (7th Cir. 1977)
Christopher Phelps v. Willie Smith (6th Cir. 2013)
Clements v. Clarke (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2009)
Clements v. Clarke (1st Cir. 2010)
United States v. Eastern Medical Billing, Inc. (3d Cir. 2000)
Smith v. Curry (9th Cir. 2009)
Earl Ray Lyell v. Paul Renico (6th Cir. 2006)
Maurice A. Mason v. Betty Mitchell (6th Cir. 2003)
United States v. Richard Anthony Aloi, Cross-Appellee (6th Cir. 1993)
Gregorio Jimenez v. E.R. Myers, Warden Attorney General of California (9th Cir. 1993)
Epperson v. United States (D.C. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

*446 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.