# 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: Jan ua ry

17 , 20 14
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 26 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

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

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ma nuel Mal do na do Agu il ar (Ma ld on ad o) ap pe al s his co nvi ct ion fo r co nspi ra cy

t o po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§

84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A) an d 84 6. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t

rem an ds

.I.

In Aug us t 20 11

, Ark an sa s po li ce fo un d m et h in si de th e sp ar e ti re of Ju li o Rap an ’s Je ep Lared o. Rap an co op e r a t e d wit h la w en fo rcem en t in a co nt ro ll ed

de li ve ry to Lit tl e Ro ck

. The r e , Rap an m et hi s co nt act in a W al gr een s pa rk in g lo t. (Ma ld on ad o dr ov e th e co nt act bu t rem ai ne d in hi s car.) The co nt act en te red th e Je ep

. Mal do na do fo ll owe d it to a res ta ur an t. Rap an ex it ed th e Je ep , an d th e co nt act dr ov e

it to Mal do na do ’s ho us e. Mal do na do fol lo wed

.

Upo n arri va l, po li ce arre st ed Mal do na do an d co nd uc te d a pr ot ect iv e swe ep of

hi s ho us e. He th en si gn ed a co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm

. The se arch rev eal ed $4 5,9 65 in

cas h, a .22 -cal ib er rev ol ve r, sc al es wit h m et h res id ue , an d to ol s st uc k be twee n a ti re

an d a rim

.

Mal do na do m o v ed to ex cl ud e ev id en ce fro m th e se arch an d to su pp res s

st at em en ts to la w e nf

or cem en t. The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n. A ju ry fo un d

Mal do na do gu i l t y. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m wit hi n- th e-g ui de li ne s to 23 5

m on th s’ i m

pr is on m en t. Mal do na do ap pe al s, co nt es ti ng th e se arch of h is ho m e, th e

s uf fic ie nc y of th e ev id en ce, an d th e pr es en ce of an al te rn at e juro r du rin g
de li be rat io ns

.

II.

Rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, th is co ur t vi ews fact ua l fin di ng s

fo r cl ear erro r an d leg al co nc lu si on s de no vo

. Unit ed St at es v. And er so n , 68 8 F.3d

33 9, 34 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Thi s co ur t “ wil l affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l of a

m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce un le ss it is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d

on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of app li cab le la w, or , bas ed on th e en ti re reco rd

, it is

-2

-cl ear a m is ta ke was m ad e.” Unit ed St at es v. V an ov er , 63 0 F.3 d 11 08

, 11 14 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ).

A.

Mal do na do at ta ck s th e pr ot ect iv e swe ep as un reas on ab le an d ov erb ro ad

. He

cl ai m s hi s en ti re ho m e di d no t im m ed ia te ly ad joi n th e pl ace of arre st (th e fro nt la wn)

,

an d th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d no art ic ul ab le fact s su gg es ti n g t h e ho us e ha rb or ed

da ng er. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Dav is

, 47 1 F.3 d 93 8, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ A ‘pro te ct iv e

swe ep ’ m us t be ‘a qu ic k an d li m it ed se arch of pr em is es

. . . co nd uc te d to pr ot ect th e

sa fet y of po li ce offi cers or ot he rs .’ ”), qu ot in g Ma ry la nd v. Bui e , 49 4 U.S. 32 5, 32 7
(1 99 0)

.

W it ho ut a warra nt

, pr ob ab le cau se , or reas on ab le su sp ic io n, of fic ers m ay “ lo ok

in cl os et s an d ot he r sp aces im m ed ia te ly ad joi ni ng th e pl ace of arre st ” to en su re of fic er

sa fet y

. Bui e , 49 4 U.S. at 33 4. Be y on d t ha t, “ th ere m us t be ar ti cu la bl e fac ts whi ch

,
ta ke n to ge th er wit h th e rat io na l in fere nc es fro m t h o s e fact s, wou ld warra nt a

reas on ab ly pr ud en t of

fic er in be li ev in g th at th e area to be swe pt ha rb or s an in di vi du al

po si ng a da ng er t o t ho se on th e arr es t s cen e.” Id

.

Law en fo rcem en t di d no t fin d ev id en ce du rin g th e pr ot ect i v e swe ep

. Mo re

im po rta nt ly, Mal do na do di d no t co nt es t th e p r o t e c t i ve swe ep in hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s. Thi s arg um en t is waiv ed

. Unit ed St at es v. Gre en , 69 1 F.3 d 96 0, 96 5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [T]he m ere fil in g of a m ot io n is no t su ffi ci en t to av oi d waiv er of sp eci fic

arg um en ts th at are ad va nc ed fo r t h e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. The Ru le 12 waiv er

pr ov is io n ap pl ie s no t on ly to th e fai lu re to m ak e a p ret ria l m ot io n, bu t al so to th e

fai lu re to in cl ud e a pa rti cu la r arg um e n t i n th e m ot io n.” ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

-3

-B.

Mal do na do ch al le ge s th e w a r ran tl es s se arch fo ll owi ng th e pr ot ect iv e swe ep , cl ai m in g h is co ns en t was not “ free ly and vo lu nt ar[i ly] gi ve n.” He all eg es : En gl is h

is no t hi s fir st la ng ua ge , he ha s lim it ed ed uc at io n, he was in cu st od y , no t ad vi se d of

hi s rig ht to refu se , no t read hi s Mir an d a r ig ht s, an d ag en ts th reat en ed to de po rt hi s

fam il y

. He al so arg ue s th at he acq ui es ced

, bu t di d no t co ns en t, be cau se he be li ev ed

of fic ers wou ld co nt in ue sea rch in g e ve n wi th ou t h is pe rm is si on

.

“ The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en to pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce

th at co ns en t to se arch was free ly gi ve n.” Unit ed St at es v. Ar ci ni eg a , 56 9 F.3 d 39 4,

39 8 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ W he th er an in di vi du al ’s con se nt is vo lu nt ary is a qu es ti on of

fact th at m

us t be de te rm in ed fro m th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ,” id

. , in cl ud in g

“ ch arac t eri st ic s of th e accu se d an d de ta il s of th e in te rro ga ti on .” Unit ed St at es v.

Luna

, 36 8 F.3 d 87 6, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). “ [W] he th er or no t th e su sp ect ha s act ua ll y

co ns en te d to a se arch

, th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t req ui res on ly th at th e po li ce reas on ab ly

be li ev e th e se arch to be co ns en su al .” Unit ed St at es v. Gar ci a , 19 7 F.3 d 12 23

, 12 27
(8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Jo nes , 25 4 F.3 d 69 2, 69 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ The

pr eci se qu es ti on is no t whe th er Jo ne s co ns en te d su bjec ti ve ly, bu t whe th er hi s co nd uc t

wou ld ha ve cau se d a reas on ab le pe rs on to be li ev e th at he co ns en te d.” ).

Unr es tra in ed

, si tt in g at hi s kit ch en ta ble

, Ma ldo na do sig ne d a co nse nt- to-s earc h

fo rm (in Sp an is h, hi s na ti ve la ng ua ge ). Dur in g th e se arch

, he di d no t ob ject or se ek

to wit hd raw co ns en t. Th ere is no ob jecti ve ev id en ce th at he was th reat en ed or

co erce d. Se e Ar ci

ni eg a , 56 9 F.3 d at 39 8- 99 (li st in g fact or s to de te rm in e

vo lu nt ari ne ss , st at in g th at a Mir an da warn in g an d aware ne ss of th e rig ht to refu se are

no t req ui red fo r vo lu nt ary co ns en t). As th e di st ric t c o u r t ru le d, ev en if Mal do na do

acq ui es ced b e cau se he th ou gh t th e se arch was in ev it ab le

, th e ke y is whe th er th e

po li ce reas on ab ly be li ev ed he co ns en te d. Se e Gar ci a , 19 7 F.3 d at 12 27

. The di st ric t

co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g th e m ot io n to su pp res s. Se e Ar ci ni eg a , 56 9 F.3 d at 39 8

-4

-(fi nd in g va li d co ns en t whe re th e de fen da nt was no t im pa ire d, th reat en ed

, or co erce d;

si gn ed a Sp an is h c on se nt for m ; an d ra is ed no ob jecti on du rin g t he sea rch ).

III.

Mal do na do at ta ck s th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce fo r hi s c o n s p i racy

co nv ic ti on . He als o a ss ert s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t ar gu ed a lo wer s ta nd ard of a pr oo f

t h a n “ be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t” by as ki ng th e jury to co ns id er wha t a reas on a b l e

pe rs on wou ld do

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws “ ch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev i d e n ce de no vo , vi ewin g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, res ol vi ng an y ev id en ti ary

co nf li ct s in fav or of th e pr os ecu ti on , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at

su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Unit ed St at es v. Osun a-

Zep ed a , 41 6 F.3 d 83 8, 84 1- 42 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ). Thi s co ur t up ho ld s a ve rd ic t if it fin ds th at a reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d

th e d efen da nt gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id

. at 8 42

.

To pr ov e co ns pi racy, th e go ve rn m en t m us t sh ow: (1 ) th ere was a co ns pi racy; (2 ) Mal do na do kn ew o f t h e co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) he in te nt io na ll y joi ne d it

. Unit ed

St at es v. Ro lo n-Ra m os , 50 2 F.3 d 75 0, 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ The co ns pi racy’ s

ex is te nc e m ay be pr ov ed by di rect or ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Id

. , ci ti ng Unit

ed

St at es v. Ca in , 48 7 F .3d 11 08 , 11 11 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The ev id en ce was : (1 ) po li ce fo un d m et h in th e sp are ti re of Rap an ’s Je ep ; (2 )

th ey sa w sc rat ch m ark s on th e ti re rim; (3 ) Rap an co op erat ed

, tra ns po rti ng th e m et h

to Lit tl e Ro ck ; (4) Rap an arra ng ed to m eet hi s co nt act at W al gr een s; (5 ) th e co nt act

a r r i v e d w it h Mal do na do ; (6 ) th e co nt act en te red Rap an ’s Je ep an d dr ov e hi m to a

res ta ur an t; (7 ) Mal do na do fo ll owe d; (8 ) Rap an ex it ed th e Je ep , an d th e co nt act dr ov e

it to Mal do na do ’s ho us e; (9 ) Mal do na do fo ll owe d an al m os t id en ti cal ro ut e to hi s
ho us e; (1 0) Mal do na do ex it ed hi s car; (1 1) la w en fo rcem en t arre st ed hi m ; (1 2) th ey

-5

-se arch ed hi s ho us e, rev eal in g a se t of di gi ta l sc al es wit h m et h r e s i du e, $4 5,9 65 in

cas h, a .2 2 re vo lv er, an d t oo ls st ic ki ng ou t fr om be twee n a ti re an d a rim

.

Bas ed on th is ev id en ce, a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d Mal do na do gu il ty be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t. His as se rti on th at th e go ve rn men t arg ue d a lo wer st an da rd of

pr oo f is ba se le ss

.

IV.

The pa rti es —an d th e di st ric t co ur t— ag ree th at th e al te rn at e’s pr es en ce du rin g jury de li be rat io ns vi ol at ed Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 24 (c)( 3) : “ The co ur t

m ay ret ai n al te rn at e juro rs aft er th e jury ret ire s to de li be rat e. The co ur t m us t en su re

th a t a ret ai ne d al te rn at e do es no t di sc us s th e cas e wit h an y on e un ti l th at al te rn at e

rep la ces a ju r or or is di sc ha rg ed

. If an al te rn at e rep la ces a juro r aft er de li be rat io ns

ha ve be gu n, th e co ur t m

us t in st ru ct th e jury to be gi n i t s de li be rat io ns an ew.” Se e

Unit ed Sta te s v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 7 (1 99 3) (th e “ pr es en ce o f al te rn at e juro rs
du rin g ju ry

de li be rat io ns is no do ub t a d ev ia ti on fro m Ru le 24 (c)” ).

Mal do na do di d no t ob

ject at tri al

. No on e no ti ce d t h e e r r o r un ti l th e

go ve rn m en t fi le d a “ Not ic e o f Erro r in Pro ceed in gs ” th e d ay aft er th e ve rd ic t. Thi s

co ur t rev ie ws f

o r pl ai n erro r. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (“ A pl ai n erro r th at affe ct s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s m ay be co ns id ered ev en th ou gh it was no t br ou gh t to th e co ur t’s

at te nt io n.” ). Mal do na do be ars th e bu rd en to sh ow th at th e erro r was pr ejud ic ia l.

Ola no , 50 7 U.S. at 73 7- 38 (“ The pr es en ce of al te rn at e juro rs du rin g jury de li be rat io ns

is no t th e ki nd of erro r th at ‘affect s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s’ in de pe nd en t of its pr ejud ic ia l

im pa ct

. . . . [I]f no ha rm res ul te d fro m th is in tru si on [o f an al te rn at e juro r in to th e jury

ro om ] rev ers al wou ld be po in tl es s.”)

. The go ve rn m en t m ai nt ai ns Mal do na do fai ls to

sh ow p reju di ce.

-6

-In Ola no , th e S u p r e me Co ur t ad dr es se d Ru le 24 (c) vi ol at io ns , fram in g th e

“ ul ti m at e in qu iry” on pr ejud ic e: “ Did th e in tru si on affe ct th e jury’ s de li be rat io ns an d

th ereb y it s v erd ic t? ” The Co ur t s ai d:

In th eo ry , th e pr es en ce of al te rn at e juro rs dur ing jury de li be rat io ns m ig ht

p r e ju d i ce a de fen da nt in two di ffer en t way s: ei th er be cau se th e al te rn at es ac tu al ly pa rt ic ip at ed in th e de li be rat io ns , ve rb al ly or th ro ug h

“ bo dy la ng ua ge ”; or be cau se th e al te rn at e s ’ pr es en ce exer te d a “ch il li ng ” ef

fe ct on th e reg ul ar juro rs

. Co nv ers el y , “ if th e al te rn at e in
fact ab id ed by th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns to rem ai n or al ly si le nt an d no t to

ot he rwis e in di cat e hi s vi ews or at ti tu de

. . . an d if t h e pr es en ce of th e al te rn at e di d no t op erat e as a res tra in t up on th e reg ul ar juro rs ’ free do m of ex pr es si on an d act io n, we se e li tt le su bs ta nt iv e di ffer en ce be tw een th e
pr es en ce of [th e al te rn at e] an d t he pr es en ce in th e juryroo m of an

un ex am in ed bo ok whi ch ha d n ot be en ad m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e.”

Id

. at 73 9 (em

ph as is ad de d)

, qu ot in g Unit ed St at es v. Al li so n , 48 1 F.2 d 46 8, 47 2 (5 th

Ci r. 19 73 ).

In te rp ret in g Ola no , t hr ee ci rcu it s ha ve he ld th at a de fen da nt is pr ejud ic ed by

an al te rn at e’s act ua l pa rti ci pa ti on in de li be rat io ns

. Se e Ma nni ng v. Huff

m an , 26 9

F.3 d 72 0, 72 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ [E]vid en ce th at an al te rn at e juro r pa rti ci pa te d in jury

de li be rat io ns is su ffi ci en t to de m on st rat e pr ejud ic e.”); Unit ed St at es v. Ace ved

o , 14 1

F.3 d 1 4 2 1

, 14 24 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (“ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th e m ere

pr es en ce of a n a l t ern at e in th e jury ro om du rin g de li be rat io ns is no t in he ren tl y

pr ejud ic ia l to th e de fen da nt

. The Co ur t, ho wev er, im pl ie d t h a t on ce th e al te rn at e

pa rt ic ipa te s in an y w ay

—w he th er th ro ug h wor ds or ge st ur es —p reju dic e is m an if es t. ”)
(in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; Unit ed St at es v. Ott er sb ur g , 76 F.3 d 13 7, 14 0 (7 th Ci r. 1

I t s h ou ld be no te d th at Aceve do he ld th at pr ejud ic e fro m th e al te rn at e’s 1

pa rti ci pa ti on can be el im in at ed whe n an al te rn at e is rem ov ed an d th e jury is pr op erl y in st ru ct ed

. Ace ved

o , 14 1 F .3d at 1 42 6- 27

.

-7

-19 96 ) (“ Ola no in di cat es th at th e su bs ta nt iv e pa rti ci pa ti on of a l t e r n a te s, on ce

es ta bl is he d, is su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h pr ejud ic e.”). Thi s co ur t si m il ar l y h o l d s th at a
de fen da nt is pr ejud ic ed whe n an al te rn at e “ act ua ll y pa rti ci pa te [s ] in the de lib er at ion s”

or “ ex ert [s ] a ‘ch i l l i n g ’ effe ct on th e reg ul ar juro rs .” Ola no , 50 7 U.S. at 73 9. Se e
al so Al li so n , 48 1 F.2 d at 47 2 (“ [S]uffi ci en t pr ejud ic e an d effe ct on th e jury’ s ve rd ic t

wou ld be sh own an d, th eref or e, a ne w t r i a l r e q ui red if th e al te rn at e di so be y ed th e

co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns an d in an y wa y pa rt ic ip a t e d in th e ju ry de li be ra ti on s , or if an y

reg ul ar juro r was de te rred in th e free ex erci se of hi s in de pe n d e n c e o f th ou gh t,

ex pr es si on , or act io n by th e m ere pr es en ce of a no n- pa rti c i p a t i ng al te rn at e du rin g
de li be rat io ns .”) (em

ph as is ad de d)

.

Th e Ei gh th Ci rcu it ad dr es se d Ru le 24 (c) vi ol at io ns in Uni te d St at es v. Hil l

, whi ch th e g ov ern m en t ar gu es co nt ro ls he re. Hi ll , 91 F.3d 10 64 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) . In

Hil l

, th e di st ric t co ur t in ad ve rte nt ly al lo wed an al te rn at e to de li be rat e fo r

two -an d- a-h al f ho ur s. Id

. at 10 71

. Befo re th e ve rd ic t, th e co ur t rem ov ed th e al te rn at e

an d a ll owe d t he jury to co nt in ue de li be rat in g. Th is co ur t h el d:

All owi ng an al te rn at e to de li be rat e wi t h t h e jury pa ne l is an ob vi ou s

erro r. W e m ay no t, ho wev er, pr es um e th a t t he al te rn at e’s pr es en ce
pr ejud ic ed th e de fen da nt

, an d Hil l ha s m ad e no affi rm at iv e sh owi ng th at he was pr ejud ic ed by t he di st ric t co ur t ’s e r ro r. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r in no t o rd eri ng a ne w tri al su a sp on te

.

Id

. at 10 72 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)

.

Hil l is di st in gu is ha bl e. In Hil l

, th ere was no ev id en ce of act ua l pa rti ci pa ti on

. Thi s co ur t— de sc rib in g th e al te rn at e’s ro le wit h th e wor d “ de li be rat e,” no t

“ pa rti ci pa te ”—h el d th at Hil l fai le d to m ak e an affi rm at iv e sh owi ng be yo nd m ere

pr es en ce. Hi ll

, 91 F.3 d at 10 72 (m ay no t pr es um e th at th e al te rn at e’s pr es en ce

pr ejud ic ed de fen da nt ). Here

, M a l do na do ’s co un se l rep or te d co nt act in g two juro rs (wit h th e co ur t’s pe rm is si on ), who sa id th at th e al te rn at e act ua ll y pa rti ci pa te d in

-8

-de li be rat io ns by as ki ng an d an swe rin g qu es ti on s, bu t di d no t vo te

. The go ve rn m en t

an d th e di st ric t co ur t r e p e a t e d th es e as se rti on s. Unl ik e Hil l, Mal do na do m ak es a
sh owi ng be y on d m ere p res en ce.

In li g h t o f th is di ffer en ce, Mal do na do co ul d m eet hi s bu rd en of pr ov in g

pr ejud ic e. The di st ric t co ur t an d th e pa rti es ap pe ar to be li ev e Mal do na do ’s as se rti on
ab ou t th e al te rn at e’s pa rti ci pa ti on , bu t th e co ur t di d no t ho ld a he a r i ng or m ak e

fin di ng s o f fac t.

Thi s co ur t rem an ds fo r fact ua l fin di ng s ab ou t th e al te rn at e’s a c tu al

pa rti ci pa ti on

. Se e Fed. R. Ev id

. 6 0 6 ( b) (“ Dur in g an In qu iry In to th e Vali di ty of a

Verd ic t or In di ct m en t

. . . [a] juro r m ay te st ify ab ou t whe th er

. . . an ou ts id e in flu en ce

was im pr op erl y br ou gh t to be ar on an y juro r.”) ; U n i t e d St at es v. Tuck er , 13 7 F.3 d

10 16

, 10 30 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 98 ) (“ [I]f a pa rty sh ows th at ou ts id e co nt act wit h th e jury

pr es en ts a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y of pr ejud ic e to th e ve rd ic t, he is en ti tl ed to a he ari ng

on th e m at te r.”), ci ti ng Rem m er v. Unit ed St at es , 34 7 U.S. 22 7, 23 0 (1 95 4) ; Unit ed

St at es v. Wa ts on , 66 9 F.2 d 13 74

, 13 91

, 13 91 n.1 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 82 ) (“ The al te rn at e’s

pr es en ce in th e jury ro om aft er th e jury ret ire d to de li be rat e wa s u n d e n i a b ly an

in tru si on in to th e sa nc ti ty of th e jury.

. . . The on ly way to de te rm in e whe th er th e

al te rn a t e i n fact pa rti ci pa te d or affe ct ed th e ve rd ic t is th ro ug h co nd uc ti ng th e

ev id en ti ary he ari ng pr es cri be d by All is on

. . . . W e reco gn iz e t h a t t he he ari ng it se lf

rep res en ts an in tru si on in to th e pr iv acy of th e jury. Und er ci rcu m st an ces su ch as th is

we be li ev e a he ar i n g l i mi t e d to a de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e al te rn at e’s pr es en ce

co ul d ha ve affe ct ed th e ve rd ic t is jus ti fie d.” ); Al li so n , 48 1 F.2 d at 47 2 (rem an di ng fo r

an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e al te rn at e pa rti ci pa te d in an y way in

th e de li be rat io ns ; whe th er he to ok pa rt in an y vo te s of th e jury; whe th er he in di cat ed

hi s vi ews reg ard in g an y of th e de fen da nt s in an y way —o ral ly or ot he rwis e; an d

whe th er th e m ere pr es en ce of th e a l t e r n a te res tra in ed an y of th e reg ul ar juro rs in

ex pr es si ng hi s vi ews or in ex erci si ng hi s in de pe nd en ce of th ou gh t an d act io n” ). Se e
al so Ola no , 50 7 U.S. at 73 8 (d is cu ss in g al t e r n a t e p a r ti ci pa ti on in th e co nt ex t of

-9

-“ ou ts id e in tru si on s” bu t de cl in in g to de ci de whe th er t e s t i m on y ab ou t juro r

pa rti ci pa ti on vi ol at es Ru le 60 6( b) or whe t h e r c o u r ts of ap pe al ha ve au th or it y to

rem an d fo r Remmer -li ke he ari ng s on pl ai n- erro r rev ie w); U ni te d St ate s v. Cu thel

, 90 3

F.2 d 13 81

, 13 83 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 90 ) (n ot in g th at “ it is im po ss i b l e f

o r th e al te rn at e to

ha ve be en an ‘ ou ts id er’ un ti l t he de li be rat io ns st art ed ”).

** ** ** *

Thi s case is 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 p art ic ip at io n. Th is co ur t re ta in s ju ris di ct io n d ur in g t hi s l im it ed rem an d.

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

-1 0-