Background
Mussay Rezene was charged with first-degree murder and two firearm offenses after Brayan Villatoro was shot eight times in a District of Columbia alley. Phone records showed that Rezene and Villatoro arranged what appeared to be a Percocet transaction shortly before the shooting. Cell-location data placed Rezene near the scene and tracked the movements of a blue Chrysler seen transporting the assailant. A jury convicted Rezene of first-degree murder but acquitted him of the firearm charges, and the trial court sentenced him to forty-five years in prison.
The trial lasted substantially longer than expected and extended through the holiday season, leaving no alternate jurors when deliberations began. The court excused Juror 5 for a scheduled overseas trip and allowed the remaining eleven jurors to continue deliberating. Juror 1 had postponed a permanent move to England until the last day permitted by her work visa, while Juror 12 had an imminent extended trip and reported serious blood-pressure concerns.
The jury twice indicated that it could not reach unanimity. After the second deadlock note, the court gave a Gallagher anti-deadlock instruction but did not assure Jurors 1 and 12 that they could travel even if deliberations remained unfinished. The jury returned its verdict the next afternoon, only hours before Juror 1’s flight to England.
The Court’s Holding
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the circumstances created a substantial risk of a coerced verdict. From the jurors’ perspective, two members faced imminent and seemingly inflexible travel, the jury had twice reported an impasse, and the court had instructed it to continue deliberating without assuring the affected jurors that they could leave regardless of whether a verdict was reached. The express assurances previously given to Juror 5 made the absence of comparable assurances to Jurors 1 and 12 particularly significant.
The court therefore vacated Rezene’s murder conviction and remanded for a retrial. It nevertheless held that the trial evidence was sufficient to support first-degree murder, so double jeopardy does not bar retrial. It also concluded that the trial court permissibly gave an aiding-and-abetting instruction because the evidence supported a finding that Rezene either was the shooter or arranged for another occupant of the Chrysler to kill Villatoro. The trial court likewise acted within its discretion by excusing Juror 5 and continuing with eleven jurors.
Key Takeaways
- Imminent, inflexible travel plans can create a substantial risk of jury coercion when jurors may believe they must reach a verdict before departing.
- An anti-deadlock instruction may heighten that risk if the court does not clearly assure affected jurors that their travel will be permitted even without a verdict.
- Although the conviction was vacated, retrial remains available because the evidence was sufficient and supported both principal and aiding-and-abetting theories.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that coercion is assessed from the jurors’ perspective and turns on the combined effect of the circumstances and the trial judge’s response, not on proof that any juror was actually coerced. A unanimous jury poll does not eliminate concern about internal pressure arising from scheduling or personal constraints.
Trial courts confronting imminent juror unavailability should directly address the pressure it may create. Here, the court indicated that an express assurance that the affected jurors could depart regardless of whether deliberations produced a verdict was likely the only adequate way to alleviate the coercive risk.