# United States v. James Michael Martin

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 5, 1985 · 756 F.2d 323

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473211

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Michael MARTIN, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 5, 1985
- **Citations:** 756 F.2d 323; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29642
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Widener
- **Judges:** Chapman, Ervin, Hall, Murnaghan, Phillips, Russell, Sprouse, Widener, Wilkinson, Winter
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473211

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that before granting a mistrial, “the court should always consider whether the giving of a curative instruction or some alternative less drastic than a mistrial is appropriate.”
- stating that "before granting a mistrial, the court should always consider whether the giving of a curative instruction or some alternative less drastic than a mistrial is appropriate."
- rejecting similar claim in a case where jury had deliberated for approximately eight hours prior to judge's challenged supplemental charge

## Opinion text

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result and in all of the majority opinion except part II thereof, which is with respect to the Allen type charge.
While I agree with the reasoning of the dissent as to the correctness of the charge given, I note there was no objection made to the charge (the only objection being to a matter not connected with the principal object of the charge). For the reason that no objection was made I would not reverse but have voted to affirm.
WINTER, Chief Judge, with whom Judges RUSSELL, SPROUSE and ERVIN join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
We see no merit in defendant’s appeal except with regard to the district court’s gratuitous, unbalanced Allen charge. As said in the panel dissenting opinion, we think that this charge was coercive and upset the fine balance of the approved Allen charge that we have prescribed for this circuit:
When the jury was told that a case is always tried best the first time that it is tried, the lawyers and witnesses do a better job in a first trial, and it is more likely that the jurors will get the true facts in a first trial ... the admonition not to give up a firm conviction was seriously undercut. The jurors were told, in effect, that, if the truth was ever to be known, they must agree on a verdict, whatever their individual convictions.
United States v. Martin, 740 F.2d 299, 304 (4 Cir.1984) (emphasis in original).
We would reverse and grant a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473211. Public record. Not legal advice.