## Facts

- Charles S. Ronder, a certified public accountant and lawyer, served as accountant and attorney for Ulster Electric Supply Co.
- The government alleged a scheme to reduce Ulster’s corporate tax liability by inflating purchase figures, thereby reducing reported profits for tax years 1971–1973.
- Witnesses testified that Ronder knew purchases were being falsely inflated, calculated false purchase amounts needed to reach desired tax liability levels, and instructed a bookkeeper on recording false entries.
- Another attorney testified that Ronder admitted knowledge of the scheme during its existence.
- Ronder signed Ulster’s 1973 corporate return as the preparer.
- After a jury trial in the Northern District of New York, Ronder was convicted of (1) conspiracy to make and file false corporate income tax returns and (2) aiding and assisting in the filing of a false 1973 corporate return.
- During deliberations, the jury sent notes reporting a deadlock, later reporting progress but stating one juror felt “badgered,” and later requesting clarification of legal standards.
- The trial judge gave supplemental instructions, including two Allen-type charges, without timely disclosing the notes’ text to counsel, and did not inform counsel of one note before answering it.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by responding to jury notes during deliberations without timely disclosing their contents to counsel and allowing counsel to suggest appropriate responses.
2. Whether the error was harmless where the undisclosed communications concerned deadlock, potential coercion dynamics, and substantive legal clarification.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court’s procedure for handling jury communications was erroneous.
- The court could not conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict, particularly given the deadlock note, the “badgered” juror report, and the court’s unreviewed response to a legal-clarification note.

## Legal Principles

- Jury notes and deliberation inquiries are critical trial events; the court must disclose the contents of a jury’s written communications to counsel before responding.
- The court must provide counsel a timely opportunity to comment and propose language for any supplemental instruction, including responses to deadlock notes and requests for legal clarification.
- Deviations from these procedures are not harmless where the appellate court cannot be confident the lack of counsel participation did not affect the verdict, especially when Allen-type instructions are given and coercion concerns are present.
- Best practice is to preserve the note on the record (e.g., marking it as an exhibit or reading it verbatim), show it to counsel, and solicit counsel’s input before any response.

## Conclusion

The convictions were reversed because the trial judge handled deliberating-jury communications without timely disclosure to counsel or an opportunity for counsel to shape the responses, and the appellate court could not rule out that this procedural error affected the verdict.


United States v. Ronder, 639 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1981)