In People v. Aleman , Juan Carlos Aleman was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, and 8 to 25 years, after being convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees.
The District Attorney established that Aleman was a "knowing participant in a large-scale drug enterprise," even though the latter claimed to be unaware of the drug activities transpiring around him. (Apparently, Aleman was found in close proximity to "very large amounts of drugs and money.")
During the trial, the New York County Supreme Court Justice received a note from the jury indicating that the jurors were "refusing to follow the court's circumstantial evidence charge" and that "some of the jurors were improperly concerned about the defendant's imprisonment." The court responded with impromptu jury instructions (instead of using the official Criminal Jury Instructions) and, after several days of deliberation, Aleman was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reluctantly affirmed the outcome and cited an 1896 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Allen v. United States (164 US 492 [1896]) -- where impromptu jury instructions were viewed as imprudent, but upheld as legally sufficient, so long as they lacked an unduly "coercive or prejudicial" effect.
Here, the AD1 found that:
The court's Allen-type charge was not coercive or prejudicial because it did not urge the jurors to agree upon a verdict or obligate them to convince one another of the correctness of their views, and it did not ask any jurors to surrender their conscientiously held beliefs … [The court] properly reminded the jurors of their duty to follow the law.
Moreover, because the jury's deliberations continued for several days after the instructions had been given, and Aleman was acquitted of money-laundering charges, that reinforced the instructions weren't coercive or prejudicial.
While the AD1 expressed "dismay that the court saw fit to deviate from the Criminal Jury Instructions," it still opted to affirm the conviction.
Aleman and his attorney likely needed to down a few pints after that decision.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: People v. Aleman