U.S. v. Williams

Defendant was entitled to new trial on charge of unlawful possession of firearm, where record showed that one member of jury was likely coerced into finding defendant guilty of said charge, since: (1) during jury polling, first juror, who was asked by Dist. Ct. as to whether she joined in guilty verdict, indicated “no;” (2) Dist. Ct. proceeded to poll remaining jurors, who all stated that they joined in guilty verdict; (3) Dist. Ct. eventually sent jury back for new deliberations knowing that there was only one holdout juror; (4) 10 minutes later, jury sent note that was signed by two different jurors indicating that there was “misunderstanding” about question that was asked during polling, and that jury now had verdict; and (5) Dist. Ct. confirmed with holdout juror that she now joined in guilty verdict before confirming said verdict with remaining jurors. Fact that Dist. Ct. did not intend to coerce holdout juror did not require different result.