McBride v. Houston County Health Care Authority et al

Filing 392

OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that plaintiff Courtney McBride's oral objection to the civil Allen charge is overruled. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/17/2015. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
COURTNEY McBRIDE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DINESH KARUMANCHI,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12cv1047-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
After nearly five hours of deliberations, the jury
informed the court around 5:30 p.m. yesterday that it
was unable to reach a verdict.

In response, the court

this morning proposed giving a civil Allen charge from
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Pattern Jury
Instructions to the jury.
Plaintiff Courtney McBride objected.

Specifically,

she objected to the following paragraph:
“If a substantial majority of you is
for a verdict for one party, each of
you who holds a different position
ought
to
consider
whether
your
position is reasonable. It may not be
reasonable since it makes so little

impression on the minds of your fellow
jurors
–
who
bear
the
same
responsibility, serve under the same
oath,
and
have
heard
the
same
evidence.”
See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil
Cases) 2.8 (2013).

McBride’s concern was that this

paragraph is coercive upon the members of the jury that
disagree with the substantial majority.
An Allen charge need only make clear to the jury
that

“(1)

they

are

duty

bound

to

adhere

to

honest

opinions” and “(2) they are doing nothing improper by
maintaining a good faith opinion even though a mistrial
may happen.”

Brooks v. Bay State Abrasive Products,

Inc., 516 F.2d 1003, 1004 (5th Cir. 1975).*
instruction

meets

those

requirements.

This model
Indeed,

the

Eleventh Circuit has previously upheld an Allen charge
with the paragraph to which McBride objects.
*

See Jones

Eleventh Circuit has adopted as precedent all
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to
October 1, 1981, and all Former Fifth Circuit Unit B
and non-unit decisions rendered after October 1, 1981.
See Stein v. Reynolds Secur., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34
(11th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d
1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
2

v. Webb, 516 Fed. App’x 762 (11th Cir. 2013) (giving a
modified

Allen

charge

but

including

the

disputed

paragraph).
Nevertheless,
concerns.

the

court

understands

McBride’s

The pattern instruction suggests that the

minority should reexamine its views without asking the
majority to do the same.
charge

in

the

criminal

For comparison, the Allen
instructions

asks

both

the

majority and the minority to reexamine their views.
See

Eleventh

Circuit

(Criminal

Cases)

modified

the

T5

Pattern

(2010).

paragraph

above

Jury
As
to

such,
the

Instructions
the

court

following:

“If a substantial majority of you is
for a verdict for one party, each of
you who holds a different position
ought
to
consider
whether
your
position is reasonable. It may not be
reasonable since it makes so little
impression on the minds of your fellow
jurors
–
who
bear
the
same
responsibility, serve under the same
oath,
and
have
heard
the
same
evidence.
On the other hand, if you
are part of that majority, you should
ask
yourselves again
–
and
most
thoughtfully – whether you should
accept the weight and sufficiency of
3

evidence that fails to convince your
fellow jurors.”
See

Supplemental

Jury

Instructions

(doc.

no.

391).

Despite this change, McBride maintained her objection.
As

the

less

balanced

pattern

instruction

has

been

upheld as non-coercive, this modified instruction that
asks

all

jurors

to

reconsider

their

viewpoints

certainly is not coercive.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Courtney
McBride’s oral objection to the civil Allen charge is
overruled.
DONE, this the 17th day of July, 2015.
_ /s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE