FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 57 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 6- cr-0 00 22 -WT H-KRS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us W ESLEY TRENT SNIPES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 6, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W es le y Tren t Sn ip es ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l an d h is rel at edm ot io ns for

lea ve to in te rv ie w juro rs . Sni pe s fi le d h is m ot io ns ov er twoy ears aft er h e was co nv ic te d o n t hr ee co un ts of wi ll fu ll y fai li ng to fil e ta x re tu rn s, in vi ol at io n o f 26 U.S.C. § 7 20 3. In hi s n ew-tria l m ot io n, Sn ip es ass ert edth at de fen se co un se l re cei ve d t wo em ai ls fro m form er jur or s i n h is cas e th atrep orte d juro r m is co nduc t. Sp eci fic al ly, on e o f th e fo rm er jur or s s ta te d t ha t thr ee m em be rs of th e jury ackn owl ed ge d, dur in g d el ib erat io ns , th atth ey ha d d et erm in edth at Sn ip es was g ui lt y

be fo re the tri al be ga n. Th atform er jur orfurth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t in ord er t o re ach a un an im ou s v erd ic t, the juro rs co m pr om is edby con vi ct in g Sn ip es on th ree o f th e le ss er co un ts , bel ie vi ng th athe wou ldno t re cei ve jail ti m e. The sec on d fo rm er jur orrefe ren cedth e al le ga ti on s i n t he ot he r juro r’s em ai l, an d in di cat edth athe or s he wou ldbe wil li ng to pro vi de furth er i nf orm at io n. Sn ip es so ug htlea ve fro m th e co urt t o i nt erv ie w hi s fo rm er jur or s co nc ern in g th e al le ga ti on s i n the em ai ls , arg ui ng th atth ey un de rm in edhi s co nv ic ti on s. Th e co urt u lt im at el y

de ni edSn ip es ’s new- tri al an d ju ro r-i nt erv ie w m ot io ns , fin di ng th atth e al le ga ti on s i n the em ai ls were i na dm is si bl e und er Ru le 60 6( b) of the Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. The c ou rt a ls o n ot edth atth ere wer e a num be r of reas on s t o que st io n t he ve raci ty of th e em ai ls ’ al le ga ti on s, i nc lu di ng th e fac t tha t th e fo rm er jur or s wai te d m or e th antwo y ears to bri ng th e m is co nduc t t o l ig ht . Sn ip es m ov edforreco ns id erat io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on , andth e d is tri ct co urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n a s wel l. 2On ap pe al , Sni pe s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n

de nyin g h is m ot io ns , rai si ng two di st in ctarg um en ts as t o wh y hi s p ro ffer edem ai ls were ad mis si bl e und er Ru le 60 6( b) . He firs t co nt en ds th atth e em ai ls fel l o ut si de th e Ru le ’s gen eral ex cl us io n o f ev id en ce co nc ern in g the jury’ s d el ib erat iv e pr oc es s, b ecau se th ey

were o ffer edto sh ow tha t juro rs co m m it te d p erjury

durin g vo ir di re by fals el y

in di cat in g t ha t the y

acce pt edth e p res um

pt io n o f in no cen ce. Alt ern at iv el y , he c on te nd s t ha t ev enif the em ai ls fel l wi th in th e Ru le ’s ex cl us io na ry

pro vi si on , th ey

were n ev erthe le ss admis si bl e und er the enum erat ed ex cep ti on s fo r ev id en ce co nc ern in g i m pr op er o ut si de in flu en ce o r ev id en ce co nc ern in g t he jury’ s u se of e xtran eo us in fo rm at io n. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a n ew-tria l m ot io n b as edon ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 13 F.3d14 64 , 14 72 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a juro r-i nt erv ie w m ot io n u nd er the same st an da rd . Uni te d Sta tes v. C uthe l , 90 3 F .2d13 81 , 13 83 (11 thCir . 19 90 ) (aff irming th e d en ia l o f a juro r-i nt erv ie w m ot io n t ha t was fil edpri orto se nt en ci ng ). Iss ue s n otrai se d i n a n app el la nt ’s in it ia l b rie f are de em ed ab an do ne d. Uni te d Sta tes v. J erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 84 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Acco rd in gl y , Sni pe s h as ab an do ne d a ny argu m en t ra is edinhi s n ew-tria l m ot io n

3ot he r th anth os e p ert ai ni ng to th e juro r em ai ls , andhe ha s al so ab an do ne d a ny

ch al le ng e to th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. To es tabl is h g ro un ds fora ne w tri al un de r Ru le 33 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e b as edon ne wly-dis co ve redev id en ce, a d efen da ntm us t pr es en t n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce tha t s at is fie s t he fol lo win g fi ve -p arttes t: (1 ) th e ev id en ce m

us t b e d is co ve redfol lo win g t ria l; (2) th e m ov an t m us t s ho w du e di li ge nc e to di sc ov er the ev id en ce; (3) th e ev id en ce m us t n otbe m erel y

cu m ul at iv e orim pe ach in g; (4) th e ev id en ce m us t b e m at eri al to is su es be fo re the co urt; an d (5 ) th e ev id en ce m

us t b e o f su cha na tu re tha t a n ew tr ia l wo ul d p ro babl y pro du ce a n ew res ul t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Di Bern ar do , 88 0 F .2d12 16 , 12 24 (11 thCir . 19 89 ). Fu rth er, i n o rd er t o u nd erm in e a v erd ic t, a d efen da nt ’s pro ffer edev id en ce m us t b e adm is si bl e und er Fe de ral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e 6 06 (b ), whi ch go ve rn s s ta te m en ts m ad e dur in g t he co ur se of ju ry de li be rat io ns . Se e Cu th el , 90 3 F .2dat 1 38 3. W it h re sp ectto ne w-tr ia l m ot io ns ba se d o n ju ro r m is co nduc t, “ th e la w bo th an ti ci pa te s an d t ol erat es so m e le ve l o f im pe rfec ti on inth e [jury ] syste m .” Uni te d St at es v. Si eg elman , 64 0 F .3d11 59 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). As a re su lt , a de fen da ntis no t p erm it te d t o c ha ll en ge hi s co nv ic ti on by argu in g t ha t the ve rd ic t res ul te d fr om

co m pr om is e, m is ta ke , or e ve n c arel es sn es s. Id. at n .36 . Mor eo ve r, al th ou gh itis im

pr op er fo r juro rs to co ns id er a d efen dant ’s po te nt ia l p en al ty 4du rin g d el ib erat io ns , pro of of s uc h c on du ctdo es no t es tabl is h g ro un ds fora ne w tri al . Id. at 1 18 7. A def en da ntm ay

est ab li sh a ri gh t t o ane w tri al , ho wev er, b y m ak in g a co lo rab le sh owi ng th atth e jury bas edit s d eci si on on ex tra ne ou s i nf orm at io n. Se e Si eg elman , 64 0 F .3dat 1 23 7. Nev erthe le ss , di st ric t co urts are n otob li ga te d t o in ve st ig at e al le ga ti on s o f juro r m is co nduc t ab se nt“ cl ear, s tro ng , subs ta nt ia l an d in co nt ro ve rti bl e ev id en ce” t ha t the jury co m m it te d a n i m

pr op rie ty tha t m ig ht un de rm in e th e v erd ic t. Cu th el , 90 3 F .2dat 1 38 3 As fo r th e ev id en ti ary pr erequi si te form ot io ns ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve red ev id en ce, Ru le 60 6( b) co di fie s t he lo ng -s ta nd in g c omm on law ru le ag ai ns t the adm is si on of ju ry

tes ti m on y

to im pe ach a ve rd ic t. Ta nn er

v. Uni te d Sta tes , 48 3 U.S. 10 7, 1 21 , 10 7 S . Ct. 2 79 3, 2 74 8 (1 98 7) . As th e Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d, the co m

m onlaw ru le was b as edon th e d es ire to pre se rv e th e in te gr it y of jury de li be rat io ns by pro te ct in g “ wha t was in te nd edto be pri va te [fro m be co min g] th e co ns ta ntsubjec t o f publ ic in ve st ig at io n.” McDo na ld v. Ples s , 23 8 U.S. 26 4, 2 67 , 35 S. Ct. 7 83 , 78 4 (1 91 5) . In i ts co di fie d fo rm , th e ru le ge ne ral ly pr ov id es th at“ [u ]pon anin qu iry int o t he va li di ty of a v erd ic t o r in di ctm en t, a juro r m ay no t t es ti fy

as t o any m at te r or

st at em en t o ccu rri ng du rin g t he co ur se of t he jury’ s d el ib erat io ns or t o t he effe ctof a nyth in g upo n t ha t o r an y othe r juro r’s m in d 5orem ot io ns as i nf lu en ci ng th e juro r to ass en t t o o r di ss en t fr om th e v erd ic t . . . or co nc ern in g t he juro r’s m en ta l p ro ces se s i n c on ne ct io n t he rewi th .” Fed .R.Evi d. 60 6( b) . If a s ta te m en t fa ll s u nd er thi s g en eral ex cl us io nary pro vi si on , itm ay ne ve rth el es s b e ad m is si bl e und er o ne of t hr ee en um erat edex cep ti on s. Fed .R.Evi d. 60 6( b) . Spe ci fic al ly, th e Ru le pe rm it s t es ti m on y co nc ern in g: “ (1 ) whe th er ex tra ne ou s p reju di ci al in fo rm at io n was im pr op erl y bro ug htto th e jury’ s at te nt io n, (2 ) whe th er an y

ou ts id e in flu en ce was im pr op erl y bro ug htto be ar upo n a ny j ur or , or(3) whethe r th ere was a m is ta ke inen te rin g t he ve rd ic t o nt o t he ve rd ic t fo rm .” Id. Not ab ly, we ha ve he ldth atth e ex cep ti on for “ ex tra ne ou s p reju di ci al in fo rm at io n” do es no t p erm ittes ti m on y th ata juro r adm it te d, dur in g d el ib erat io ns , th atsh e p reju dg edth e d efen da nt ’s gu il t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ven sk e , 29 6 F .3d12 84 , 12 87 -8 8, 1 29 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 2) . Inth e in st an t ca se , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t the all eg at io ns in Sn ip es ’s pro ffer edem ai ls were i na dm is si bl e, an d t ha t i t was th eref or e unabl e to co ns id er the m

inrul in g o n t he ne w-tr ia l an d ju ro r-i nt erv ie w m ot io ns . Firs t, the em ai ls fel l wi th in Ru le 60 6( b) ’s gen eral ex cl us io na ry pro vi si on , bec au se th at pr ov is io n c ov ers “ an y

m at te r orst at em en t o ccu rri ng du rin g t he co ur se of t he jury’ s de li be rat io ns .” Seco nd , th e em ai ls di d n otfal l wi th in th e Ru le ’s sp eci fic al ly 6enum erat edex cep ti on s, b ecau se th ey di d n otall eg e o ut si de in flu en ce, rel ianc e o n ex tra ne ou s i nf

orm at io n, o r a m is ta ke infil li ng ou t the ve rd ic t fo rm . Mor eo ve r, ev enif the all eg at io ns ha d b een adm is si bl e, th e d is tri ctco urt i nd ic at edth atth ey di d n otco ns ti tu te cle ar, s tro ng , subs ta nt ia l an d i nc on tro ve rti bl e ev id en ce o f th e type o f m is co nduc t tha t wo ul d warran t a n ew tr ia l. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g S ni pe s’s m ot io ns . AFFIRMED. 1

Snipes’s Motion for L eave to File Reply Brief Out of T ime is GRANTED. 1 Snipes’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 7