# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 28 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Man ue l M al do na do Agu il ar

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 8, 20 14 Fil ed : M ay

29 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Man ue l Mal do na do Agu il ar ap pe al ed his co nvi ct ion, ch al le ng in g, am on g ot he r th in gs , th e pr es en ce of an al te rn at e juro r du rin g de li be rat io ns

. Thi s cou rt rem an de d

“ fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of in qu iry ab ou t th e al te rn at e’s act ua l pa rti ci pa ti on .” In li gh t of th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fa ct ua l fi nd in gs , th is co ur t re ve rs es an d re m an ds

.“[T]he al te rn at e’s pr es en ce du rin g de li be rat io ns vi ol at ed Fed eral Ru l e o f

Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 24 (c) ( 3 )

. ” Unit ed St at es v. Ag ui

la r , 7 43 F.3 d 11 44 , 1 14 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), ci ti ng Unit

ed St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 7 (19 93 ) (“ The pr es en ce of al te rn a te juro rs du rin g jury de li be rat io ns is no do ub t a de vi at io n fro m Ru le 24 (c).” ). Bec au se Mal do na do di d no t ob ject at tri al , th is co ur t rev ie ws fo r pl ai n erro r. Id

. , ci ti ng Fed. R. Crim. P. 52

. “ Mal do na do be ars th e bu rd en to sh ow th at th e erro r

was pre jud ic ia l.” Id

. at 11 49 , ci ti ng Ola no , 50 7 U.S. at 73 7- 38

.

In th e earl ie r op in io n, t hi s co ur t h el d t ha t “ a de fen da nt is pr ejud ic ed whe n an al te rn at e ‘actu al ly pa rti ci pa te [s ] in th e de li be rat io ns ’ or ‘exert [s ] a ‘chi ll in g’ effe ct on th e reg ul ar juro rs .’ ” Id

. , qu ot in g Ola no , 5 0 7 U .S. at 73 9. Thi s co ur t rem an de d fo r fact ua l fin d i n g s w he th er th e al te rn at e act ua ll y pa rti ci pa te d in de li be rat io ns or was

m erel y pre se nt

. Id

. at 11 50 -5 1.

Afte r 10 juro rs an d t he alt ern at e te st ifi ed , th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d:

The al te rn at e juro r pa rti ci pa te d in th e de li be rat io ns

. Alt ho ug h it ap pe ars th at he r pa rti ci pa ti on was m in im al , i t is cle ar t ha t sh e as ke d qu es ti on s. As th e te st im on y ou tl in ed be low ind ic at es , di ffer en t juro rs rem em be r he r pa rti ci pa ti on di ffer en tl y

. The m os t rel ia bl e pe rs on on th is qu es ti on is th e al te rn at e juro r he rs el f, who te st ifi ed th at sh e as ke d qu es ti on s bu t di d no t in di cat e h er v ie ws o n wh et he r th e d efen da nt was g ui lt y or n ot gu il ty.

The al t e rn at e di d no t pa rti ci pa te in an y vo te s. Here, ag ai n, th e m os t rel ia bl e te st im on y is th at of th e al te rn at e, who te st ifi ed th at sh e di d no t

vo te

. Alt ho ug h two juro rs te st ifi ed th at th ey be li ev e th e al te rn at e vo te d,

ne it he r of th es e juro rs was cert ai n. All o t h e r ju r o rs te st ifi ed th at th e al te rn at e d id no t v ot e.

The al te rn at e di d no t i n di cat e he r vi ews reg ard in g th e de fen da nt

. It ap pe ars t h a t th e jury was di vi de d be twee n ei gh t to ni ne juro rs who be li ev ed th e de fen da nt was gu il ty an d th ree to fo ur juro rs who in it ia ll y be li ev ed he was no t g u il ty. The al te rn at e te st ifi ed th at sh e as ke d

-2

-qu es ti on s bu t ne ve r in di cat ed he r vi ews reg ard in g th e de fen da nt ’s gu il t.

Alt ho ug h two juro rs be li ev e th e al te rn at e ex pr es se d h er v ie ws b ecau se th ey rem em

be r ev eryone d o i ng so , th ey do no t rem em be r wha t th e al te rn at e m ay ha ve sa id

. The ot he r juro rs ei th er ag ree wit h th e al te rn at e’s te st im on y th at sh e di d no t ex pr es s he r vi ews , or t he y do no t rem em be r whe th er s he di d s o.

Fi na ll y , th e al te rn at e’s pr es en ce di d no t res tra in th e reg ul ar juro rs fro m
ex pr es si ng th ei r vi ews or ex erci si ng in de pe nd en t th ou gh t. The jury was sp li t at fir st , a nd each juro r ex pr e s s e d h e r vi ews be fo re th e vo te s were ta ke n. The al te rn at e di d no t pa rti ci pa te in th e di sc us si on s be twee n th es e
vo te s. Mo reo ve r, ev ery juro r te st ifi ed th at no th in g th e al te rn at e sa id or di d a ffec te d t he ir p oi nt s o f vi ew or th e o ut co m e o f th e cas e.

Unit ed St at es v. Ma ld

on ad o , No. 4: 11 CR0 01 90 -0 3 BSM , 20 14 W L 17 44 86 5, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Ma y

1, 2 01 4)

.

Bec au se th e al te rn at e act u a l l y p a rti ci pa te d in de li be rat io ns , th e erro r was pr ejud ic ia l.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t is rev ers ed , an d th e cas e rem a n d e d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-