Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02130/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02130-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Cisneros
Appellee
Mark Clayton
Appellee
Jack Dietz
Appellee
Jane Doe
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
Paula Grundler-Ulibarri
Appellee
Thomas W. Hill
Appellee
Beverly Lennen
Appellee
Dennis Miller
Appellee
Charles Ross
Appellant
Donald Sandoval
Appellee
Santa Fe, City of
Appellee
Brenda Trujillo
Appellee
Tony Trujillo
Appellee
Frank Valdez
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L lL ... DA--1• 

United Stat.es Cou~~ ,)'..-,-

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES ROSS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

SANTA FE, CITY OF; BEVERLY LENNEN, in ) 

their individual and official capacities;) 

DONALD SANDOVAL, in their individual and) 

official capacities; TONY TRUJILLO, in ) 

their individual and official capacities;) 

JACK DIETZ, in their individual and ) 

official capacities; MARK CLAYTON, in ) 

their individual and official capacities;) 

FRANK VALDEZ, in their individual and ) 

official capacities; BRENDA TRUJILLO, in) 

their individual and official capacities;) 

JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, in their individual ) 

and official capacities; RAY CISNEROS, ) 

in their individual and official ) 

capacities; PAULA GRUNDLER-ULIBARRI; ) 

THOMAS W. HILL; and DENNIS MILLER. ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND J1JDGMENT* 

Tenth Cin.w" 

MAR2 3 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-2130 

(D.C. No. 90-1040-JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. ~ Fed. R. App. P. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

----- -

Appellate Case: 92-2130 Document: 010110198748 Date Filed: 03/23/1993 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Ross appeals a district court order denying his motion 

for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. He argues on appeal 

that a post-verdict comment made by one of the jurors revealed 

that she had concealed information on her juror questionnaire and 

on voir dire, and that such misconduct denied his right to a fair 

trial. He further argues that the district court erred by failing 

to grant his motion for a new trial or alternatively conducting an 

evidentiary hearing on the juror's possible bias. We affirm. 

Ross brought an action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against 

officers of the Santa Fe Police Department for violation of his 

civil rights as a result of events related to a criminal 

investigation and arrest. The matter was tried by a jury which 

returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all claims. 

Following the verdict, one of the jurors, Ms. Deckert, stated in 

the presence of other jurors: "Those police officers are so nice. 

You know, my father was a policeman, and he was shot by one of 

them. " In a written questionnaire, Ms. Deckert had checked "no" 

in response to a question regarding whether any member of her 

family had been a member or employee of any law enforcement 

agency. In addition, she was silent during voir dire regarding 

whether a family member had been a victim of a violent crime. 

Appellant claims on appeal that Ms. Deckert's inaccurate response 

and failure to respond would have been grounds for excluding her 

from the jury. 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-2130 Document: 010110198748 Date Filed: 03/23/1993 Page: 2 
We review the district court's denial of the motion for new 

trial for a manifest abuse of discretion. Canady v. J.B. Hunt 

Transp., Inc., 970 F.2d 710, 716 (10th Cir. 1992). The district 

court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing is also 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gines, 964 

F . 2d 972, 977 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 s. Ct. 1023 

(1993). To obtain a new trial in this situation, Mr. Ross must 

show that the juror failed to answer a material question honestly 

and that a correct response would have provided a valid basis to 

challenge the juror for cause. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. 

Greenwood, 464 U. S . 548, 556 (1984) . The district court did not 

conduct an evidentiary hearing but found that the unrevealed 

information was "insignificant and trifling" and "indicative only 

of a remote or speculative influence on the juror." We cannot say 

that the district court abused its discretion in making these 

findings and therefore AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-2130 Document: 010110198748 Date Filed: 03/23/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-2130 Document: 010110198748 Date Filed: 03/23/1993 Page: 4