at the conclusion of these instructions. After the district court had read the instructions to the jury, the court asked counsel if there were any objections to the manner in which they were read. The Domanns’ counsel stated that there were none. After deliberations, the jury informed the court that it had reached a unanimous verdict. Upon reading the verdict, the district court noted that the first question on the special verdict form had been left blank. The jury foreman c & Communications, Inc., 948 F.2d 1518, 1522 (10th Cir.1991). It is the additional burden of the appellant to show that any verdict inconsistency demonstrates “either confusion or abuse on the jury’s part.” Global Van Lines, Inc. v. Nebeker, 541 F.2d 865, 868 (10th Cir.1976). In d F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Audette v. Isaksen Fishing Corp., 789 F.2d
recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole holding that where a jury fails to return unanimous answers to some of the questions on a special verdict form the trial judge can enter judgment on the basis of the unanimous verdicts if they are dispositive of the case holding that federal rule of criminal procedure 31d grants the trial judge a measure of discretion in determining either to require the jury to deliberate further or to grant a mistrial if it appears that the verdict was not unanimous holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict holding in a medical malpractice case involving several theories of liability that the appellant by not requesting a special verdict form has forfeited his right to complain on appeal that the jury might not have been unanimous in its views