United States v. Philip Epps

Summary

The court held that the district court’s incorrect statement that a deadlocked jury had to reach a unanimous verdict did not make the supplemental instruction unduly coercive when read in the context of the complete jury charge. Because Epps did not object, his failure constituted forfeiture rather than invited error, but the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on an incorrect legal conclusion. The court reversed the new-trial order and remanded for further proceedings.