1987) (unanimity generally not required with respect to a specific act underlying an element of a charged offense). Although Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(a) requires that a criminal conviction be unanimous, the jury need not necessarily agree on the facts underlying that conviction. The court was not required to give a specific unanimity instruction because the jury, in fact, was not required to agree on the specific gun carried. Paniagua-Ramos, 135 F.3d at 199 (finding confusion when jury convicted defendant of conspiracy but acquitted him on the underlying substantive charge, because evidence suggested defendant was either innocent of both or guilty of both). suggests that it reviewed the evidence rationally and independently') cf. See Plunk, 153 F.3d at 1027 (concluding that 'the fact that the jury rendered a mixed verdict. 2 The internal consistency of this result suggests a nuanced analysis and reasoned decision. The jury's verdict indicates that it found Hernandez guilty of the drug crime and of possession of his own gun, but rejected the government's argument that he constructively possessed the firearm under Ramirez's seat. Finally, he was acquitted of possessing the gun with an obliterated serial number which was found underneath Ramirez's seat. He was also convicted of possession of a gun, either the one on his person or the one under Ramirez's seat, during and in relation to the drug crime. As noted earlier, Hernandez was convicted of conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. The other relevant circumstance in this case, namely, the verdict's internal consistency, also implies an absence of coercion.

Albino 3 serial