Reasonable doubt is in the eye of the beholder. What I mean to say is that is
if person is convicted then the jury has by necessity decided that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime charged. If your inquiry suggests otherwise then an issue for an appeal is present.
This answer/response is based on the information provided in your inquiry and requires a much more complete context than is available in this public forum. Please do NOT use this answer/response to say or do anything regarding your situation. BEFORE you say or do anything consult with an experienced local Federal and/or state criminal defense attorney in your jurisdiction who will listen to you and your concerns.
These questions truly need to be discussed with the attorney who handled the case, and who is familiar with all the specific facts, so as to address any possible appellate issues, or issues with a motion for new trial, or other post-conviction concerns. Based on the limited facts available in a public forum, it is not possible to provide a definitive answer. For example, the question is posted a federal criminal defense issue so it appears it was a federal jury trial, but on the other hand, there is no offense of "second degree robbery", as such, under the federal code. In a federal trial, there are a number of ways a jury could theoretically convict a defendant of a violent crime, but not of possessing a firearm during the commission of the offense (for example, a Hobbs Act armed robbery can be committed and prosecuted where the defendant used a fake firearm, but a charge of using a firearm during commission of a violent felony would require that a real firearm was used, so the jury could convict for the robbery but hang on whether it was proven that it was a real firearm). The questioner should work with his lawyer to understand the verdict, the legal basis for it, and any possible challenges, as there are too few facts available in a public forum. Good luck.
The author provides answers on this site based on hypothetical questions and fact patterns. The answers provided are for general educational and informational purposes only, and they do not constitute legal advice, which would require a personal consultation and representation agreement. Questions and answers on this site do not create an attorney-client relationship, and the communications are not privileged. Any citizen with a legal issue should consult personally with an attorney and should rely only on legal advice provided in a formal attorney-client relationship.
CA case? If so It sounds like a PC211 Robbery conviction. That is theft from the person by force or fear. No need to prove you used a firearm. The firearm would have added time had they proven you were armed or used it.
The content on this Web site is intended for informational purposes only. No part of this site is intended to provide legal advice. Nothing on this site is intended to nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information contained herein does not constitute any type of guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any specific case. Each case is unique and depends on the specific facts of that case. Never solely rely on the internet to determine your legal actions.
It is not uncommon for persons to differ regarding whether a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the jury is unanimous in its decision the defendant is convicted.
The jury apparently had a doubt about the firearm, but not about the robbery. As long as the judge instructed the jury properly, there is no problem with that.
This answer is provided for educational purposes only and is not intended as the practice of law in any jurisdiction in which I am not licensed. The answer does not constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The answer is based only on the information provided, and may be inaccurate in the context of additional facts that have not been provided. The questioner should be aware that I am only licensed to practice law in the state and federal courts of Minnesota. Accordingly, before taking any action or refraining from taking any action, the questioner should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in his or her jurisdiction.
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking whether the jury's verdict of guilty on one count was legally or logically inconsistent with the failure to reach a verdict on the other count. Probably not, but different states view this issue differently as a matter of state law. Ask the attorney who is representing you. This could be an issue for appeal. Whether it would be successful is another matter.