explaining that 23 eliciting the jurors’ views on the merits could indicate coercion
How later courts described this case
- explaining that 23 eliciting the jurors’ views on the merits could indicate coercion
- explaining the coercive effect of a trial judge’s decision to revisit 26 select pieces of evidence to respond to juror concerns
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMAS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Under the circumstances presented by this case, I join my colleagues in affirming the district court’s denial of Parker’s petition for habeas corpus. I write separately only to emphasize that the supplemental jury instruction issued in this case could have an unconstitutionally coercive effect in other contexts, even under the deferential standard of review imposed by AED- *1150 PA. Federal habeas review of the Moore instruction in future cases, as in this one, will rest on evaluation of the instruction “in its context and under all the circumstances.” Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 237 , 108 S.Ct. 546 , 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988) (quoting Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446 , 85 S.Ct. 1059 , 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965) (per curium)) (internal quotation marks omitted).