## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HRIS B LI T CH, M ICHAEL H ARRIS, D EVARL W A S H I NG T ON, an d M ICHAEL C ARWELL, D ef endants-A ppell ants
.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C R 00586

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judg e.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 3, 2010

Befo re B AUER, M A NI ON, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Chri s Bl i tch, M i chaelH ar ri s, DevarlW ashi ngto n, an d M i chaelCarwel l were tr i ed and convi cted o fco nspir in g to di str ibute 1 5 k i l ogr am s o fco cai ne. Duri ng the t rial, se ver alev ents too k pl ace th ata di st r i ctj udg e m i ghtne ve r s ee dur i ngthe c o u r s e of a j ud ici al career. Fi rst, after the initialj ury2 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 hear d test i m ony f ro m the gov er nm ent’ s princi pal witnes s, j ur o r s ex pr es se d c o nc ern f o r the i r s afety b ec au se the defen dan ts ha d a cc es s t o i nf o r m at i o n abo utthe m . The j udg e dec l ar ed a m i st r i ala fte r i nd iv i dualque st i o ni ng of t h e jur or s re ve ale d th e jur or s c ou ld n otrem a i n f a ir. A new j ury pool w as sum m oned and pr ovi ded wri tte n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , b u tth e n e w p a n e l e x p r e s s e d th e s a me c on c er n be f o r e jur y s ele c tio n h ad be en co m p let ed . Th is ti me, the j ud g e di d no t c o nd uc t i nd i v i du a l v o i r di re , an d the j ur y was sw orn an d i m pan el ed. F i na l l y, a t th e end ofthe trial, wh en the j uror s ind i cate d they had r ea c h e d a u n a n i mo u s v e r d i c t, o n e s t a t e d d u r i n gt he pol l i ng i n open c ou rt thatthe pu bl i shed ver dictdi d not r epr es en t he r o wn dec i si o n. These s i tuati ons did not m ak e f oran e asycas e. N oneth eless, th e c ou rt’s f ail ure to i nd ivi d ua ll y voir d ire the s e c o nd p a ne l r e g a r di ngi t s s a fe t y c o nc e r ns , a nd her i n st ru c tio n s t o ke ep d elib er at in g a fte r th e jur y p oll, w hen the j u ry h ad speci fi cal l y r equeste d to l eave f or the day, l ead us to the concl usi on that th e d efendants sh ou ld r ec ei ve a ne w tr i al

. The r efo r e, we va ca te the j u d gm en t o f th e d ist ric t c ou rtan d rem an d for a n ew tria l.

I . B AC KGR OUND This case has i ts or i gi ns in Jam i son M oo re ’ s guil ty ple a i n K ane County, Illin ois st ate co urt. M oo re had bee n charged with unl aw ful del i ver y o fa contr ol l ed substa nce and fa ced up to thi rty year s in pri son. Fa ci ng tha t l ength ofti m e in custo dy, M oo re acc epted a ple a o fferfro m the Kane County S tat e’ s A ttorne y’ s Offi ce that a l l owed hi m t o pl ea d gu il tya nd r ec ei ve a pr o ba ti o n- o nl y s en -N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 3 te n c e. T h e n o-jail offe r d id h av e c on d itio n s, of c ou rs e. In a ddi t i o n t o the ty pi c a l r e qu i r e men to ft r uthfulc o o perati on, the proba ti on- onl y o fferher e r equi re d M oo re to : perf or m wh ate ver fun cti ons oras si sta nce r equi r ed byAur o r a Po l i ce De par tmenta nd the K ane County St ate ’ s Attor ney’ s O ffi ce which resu lts i n th e arrest an d cha rging of TE Ndi f f e r e nt individuals with D el ivery or P ossess ion with i nte nt t o deliv er con trol led su bsta nc es o rc a nn a bis. E a ch case m ust in vo lve a class Xa m o un t o f c a nn a bis or co ntro lled substa nc e by w eigh t. The D efendant wil l notbe a tran sact ional w itness i n a n y of th e cases that are ult i m ate l y charg ed as fel ony drug o ffenses , unl ess s pe c i fi c a l l y a utho r i z e d. ( Em pha se s i n o r i g i na l )
. I n r eturn , the pl ea a g r ee m en t p r o v i d e d th a tMo o r e w o u l d r e c e i v e c r e d i tf o r t i me serve d a n d thathi s s entence would be 48 m onths’ pro bati o n. W i th M o o re ’ s c o o pe r a t i o n, the g o v e r nme ntc o nc o c t e d a sto ry . S peci alA gent Davi d G om ez ofth e U n i ted S tat es Bu re au ofA l cohol, Tobac co, Fi re ar m s a nd Exp l osi ves ( “A TF”) as sum ed the ro l e o fa dis gr u n tl ed drug co uri er nam ed “ L oqui to” wh o w anted to r ob a drug sta sh house of about 15 kil ogram s of c o c a in e. L oqu ito tol d his story to Bli tch, Carwel l, H ar ri s, and W ashi ngto n and m et w i th them to di scuss the r obbe ryo f t h e sta sh house

. I n re al i ty, th er e was no upc o m i ng d eli ve r y, no s ta shho us e, a nd no ca rt elto r ob, as the defe nd ants w er e t o fi nd o ut. On the chos en day, the de fendants sho w ed up at a desi gnate d l oca ti on, som e with guns, m ask s, and gl ove s.4 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 H ar ri s a nd Bl i tch r efused to ge t in to a v an with Loqui to and M oo re and i nstea d drove thei r own ve hi cl e t o a sto ra ge f aci l i ty, wh er e Loqui to had sai d the pl an was to eve ntual l y s tor e th e drugs

. Carwel l and W ashi ngto n wer e ar r es te d o n the s to r ag e f ac i l i typr emi se s. Har r i s an d Bli tch, wh o de c lin ed to f ol l ow the va n past the s tor age f ac i l i ty ’ s g at e, were ar r es te d o ut si de th e g at e. The f o ur w er e char ged i n federa l co urt w i th c on spi ri ng to posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute c oca i ne , in v i ol ati on o f 21 U
. S. C. § 8 46; at tem pti ng to poss ess with intent to dist ribute c oca i ne, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 46; possessin g fi rearm s d uring and i n relation to d rug traffi ck i ngc r i m es , i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( c) ; a nd bei ng fel ons i n posse ssi on o ffi re ar m s, i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g)( 1). On M onday, J uly23 , 20 07, the dist ri ct c ourtas sem bl ed fi fty j uror s a nd c om m enced vo i r dir e. The co urt questio n ed p ro sp ec tiv e jur or s o ra lly an d as k e d e ac h th eir n am e, o ccupati on, and nei ghborhood o fr esi dence, as w el l as questi ons on t opi cs incl ud i ng the a ges and occupa ti o n o fthe i r chil dr ena nd pa ste xpe r i en ce wi ththe crim inal j us tice system
. Th e j urors an d a lternate s w ere sele c te d, and the par ti es gave thei r openi ng st ate m ents th ata fte r no o n. The j urors hea r d t es ti m o ny fr o m Age ntGo m ez the ne xt day

. Atth e e n d o fth e d a y, th e c o u r ti n f o r me d the parti es that w hen the C ou rt S ecuri ty Offi cer( CSO) had been i n the j ury ro om ea rl i eri n the after noon, se ver al j uror s had expre sse d concer n f orthei r safetyi n fro nt o f al l the o th erj ur o r s an d want ed to kno w w he th ertheN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 5 d efe n d an ts w ou ld kn ow w h er e th ey liv ed . Th e jud ge to ld th e p a r t i e s th a t th i s i n f o r ma t i o n b o th e r e d h e r i n “ tw o w ay s, th atob vio u sly th ey w er e d isc u ss in g t h e c as e in vi ol ati on o fm y o rdernotto , atl eas t in that sense , a n d wh e th e r th e y h a v e p r ej u d g e d i t. Ith i n kth a twe ar e probabl y going to have to bring each one of t h em i ndi vi dual l y i n i n the mor ni nga nd ta lk to th em an d d ec id e w h e t h e r I n ee d a n ew j u ry .” T h e jud ge als o t old th e par ti es tha t th e j ur y c o o r d inator “pr o m i se s m e sh e can g et 50 peopl e that were not here o n M onday, so they w ou ld be 50 n ew p ro sp ec tiv e jur or s.” T he nex t m orning , the C SO recou nt e d f o r the cou rt a n d p a r t i es wh a th a d t r a n s p i r e d th e p r e v i o u s d a y . He state d that the j u rors had sum m one d him to the j ury r o o m o n th e p r e mi s e th a t th e y wa n t e d t o d i s c us s th e he at i ngi n the co ur tr o o m , b uttha t when he a r r i ve d the j u ro rs ins te ad to l d h im th ey w er e w or rie d ab ou t t h eir f ami l i es a nd the m se l ve s. The CS O e xpl aine d tha t th e j uror s then ask ed hi m a s er ies ofquesti ons as to w hat woul d b e do ne t o pr o te ctthe m fr om “ r et al i at i o n, ” an d he as ked the j uror s t o put thei r concerns i n w ri ti ng f or the j ud ge. In ligh t of th is in for m at ion , th e j u d ge su m m on e d in d ivi du alj uror s t o the cou rtro om , o ne ata ti m e. S he questi oned ea ch as to w hat had be en sa id d u rin g the di scussi on r ega rdi ng j ury safe ty and i nquir ed w hetheranyth i ngs ai d woul d a ffec t th e juro r ’ s ab i l i tyt o b e f ai r a nd i m par ti al

. Af te r que st i o ni ngthe fi r st four j ur o r s, the j u d ge ex p re ss ed co n c er n ab ou t w h et h er tw o c ou ld re m ai n f ai r. She then continued to i nd i vi du al l y quest i on6 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 th e r emai ni ngj ur o r s. Af te r s he fi ni sh ed, the j udg e co nc lu d ed that the j uror s’ r esponse s di d not a ssur e herthat th ey co u ld ren d e r a f a i r ve rd ict an d d ec lar ed a m ist ria l. T h e j u d g e th e n b r o u g h ta l l th e j u r o r s i n t o th e c o u r t r o o m, th anked the m f orthei r ser vi ce, and i nfo rm ed them they w oul d be e xcused. S he al so ass ure d them she had never hear d ofany i nstance s o fr eta l i ati on a gai nst j uror s. The j udg e dec i ded to us e a j ur y que st i o nna i r e f o r the n ex t v eni re , wh i ch beg an the m or ni ng afterthe m i str ial. Pro specti ve j uror s co m ple ted a tw enty- ei ght- i tem questi onnai re thatbeg an by as ki ng f orfull n am e and age, f ol l owed by a re quest forthe ci ti es orsuburb s or parts o fChi ca g o wher e th e pr o spe ct i ve j ur o r ha d l i ve d i n the l as t te n y ea r s. The que st i o nna i r e als o r eque st ed th e na m e o fthe c ur r en t empl o y er, s po us e’ s o cc upa ti o n a nd n am e o f em p loy er , an d ag es of an y c h ild re n, an d it ask ed additi onalquesti ons re l ated t o experi ences as a victim ofc r i m e, wi ththe c o ur t, a nd a s a wi tn es s. The j ud ge al so ask ed or alf ol l ow-up questi ons i n cour t. W hen vo i r dir e had be en co m ple ted, the j ud ge excus ed the j uror s s o that she c oul d discuss the fi nal com posi ti on o fthe j ury w i th the part i es. One pro specti ve j ur o r r emai ne d i n the c o ur tr o o m wi ththe CSO, a nd the CSO i nfo rm ed t h e courtthatthe pros pecti ve j uror want ed to k no w w hy the de fen dan ts ha d c o pi es o fthe j ury ques tio nnai re s. The j ud ge re sponded thatco unsel ha d the que st i o nna i r es , a nd th e pr o spe ct i ve j ur o r l eft th e ro om . The j ud ge excused thatpro spective j urorfro m ser vi ce o n the j ury. The cou rt and part i es then be gan di scussing wh i ch othe r perso ns shoul d b e e xcused f orcause . A ftera re cess ,N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 7 the c ourti nfo rm ed the parti es, “W e a re havi ng pro blem s again. W e j us t exc us ed [ one prosp ective j uror] because she w as s ay i ng tha t s he was conce rned ab out i t. Bu ts he mus th a v e b e e n t a l k i ngt o s o meb o dy n a m ed D e b o r a h C o h e n wh o h a s n o w e x p r e s s e d th e s a me th ing, t ha t the de fend an ts ha ve th eir qu estionn aires. So I ’m g o in g to exc us e her [C ohe n] for cau se.” Th e cou rt al so sta ted to the parti es t h at she had gi ven o ut the questi onnai re s f orthe att or neys’ use. Aft era l i tt l e m o r e di sc us si o n, the j udg e i nf o r m ed the p ar ties: “Ap parentl y [ the CSO] thi nks that thi s i s a widesp read prob lem , that they allsaw i t a n d th ey allw ere ta lki ngabo uti t. ” The j udg e su g g es te d s he c o ul d b r i ng al l the pro specti ve j uror s ba ck i nto the c ourt ro om to as k w hetherany fel t uncom f or tabl e s i tting o n th e j u ry. W hen the pr ose cutoras ked how w i despread the si tuati on w as, the j ud ge re sponded thatthe CSO “thi n ks that th ey w ere a l l di scussing i t. ” As the j ud ge and counsel disc ussed how to proce ed, a defe nse a tto rneyr em ar ked that they w er e in the sam e s i tuation as theyhad bee n w i th the fi rs t g ro u p o f juro rs , and eve n the pros ecuto r st at ed, “ Ij us t do n’ t se e ho w you c ando i t wi th o ut j u st br in gin g in ev er yo n e in d ivid u ally .” N o ne th el es s, the j ud g e i ndi ca te d s he f av o r ed br i ng i ng i n the enti re ve ni re ato nce, wh er e s he w ou l d stat e that th er e ha d ne ve r b ee n a p robl em wi thj ur o r s afety a nd th ena skw hethe r a ny pe r so n h ad a pr o bl em se r ving on th e jur y. T h e d efe n se reit er at ed its p o s itio n th at th is ve ni r e ha d e xpre ss ed th e sa m e co nc erns a s th e pr ev i o us veni re had and that a n ew jurypoolsho uld be as sem bl ed8 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 the upcom i ng M onday. The j ud ge re sp on d ed thatwas n ot p oss ibl e be cause i fshe did that, the tr i alm i ght no t fi ni sh be f or e sh e w as schedule d to si t bydesi gnati on o n th e F ed er al C irc u it. Wi th th e e n t i r e v e n i r e a s s e mb l e d b a c k i n th e c o u r t r o o m, the j ud g e s a i d: Okay. H ave w e gotever ybo dy? Okay. Thi s wil l j ust tak e a m i nute, Ithi nk. Ir eal i zed a l i ttl e bi t a go ther e was a pros pecti ve j urorwh o, o ne, was dis cussi ng thi s ca se outs id e, an d w e w er en ’t s u re w h o all sh e w as d isc u ss in g it wi th, a nd , o fc o ur s e , tha ts ho ul d n o th a v e h a ppen ed. Ij us t sa i d y o u c an ’ t di sc us s th e ca se, a nd it’ s im p rop er. Bu t a nyw ay, thi s per son apparentl y had i nd i cate d th atf o r som e re as o n s he ha d a n i ss ue abo ut j urorsa fetyo r so m et h i ng be cause, o fco urse , defe ns e co un s e l an d t he go v e r nme ntan d e v e r yb o dy needs to go o verthe quali fi cati ons ofev er ybo dy. So in th e firs t p lac e, I w an t to te ll you th at n ev er in the e nti re hi sto ryo fthe U ni ted S tat es as far as Ikno w , a nd Icer tai nl y, I ’ m qui te sure o fi t, has ther e e verbee n, ever been an i ssue about j uror safety
. But Iwant thi s, yo u know, Iwa n t to kno w th at th e p eop le w ho w il l d ecid e this case and every c a s e , y o u k no w, a r e de c i di ngi twi th r e s pec t to the eviden ce th a t they hear an d they aren’t thi nki ng ab out anythi ng el se.N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 9 So i fther e i s a nybo d y h ere who som ehow thi nks that they have an i ssu e about i t, Iwant you t o st ay be h in d w h ile ev er yb od y e lse lea v es an d I’ll ta l kt o y o u. One pe rs on s tay ed behi nd and sai d he had al so noti ced th atthe de fen dan ts ha d the j ur o r s’ i nf o r m ati o n. The j udg e ex cus ed th at j ur o r fr o m s er vi ce b utno t an y o ne el se, and the j ud ge al so confi scat ed note s that a spectat orhad tak en duri ng vo i r dir e. The case then proce eded to tr i al

. A l though th e d efense su bpo en ae d M o o r e, he di d no t appe ar a t t r i al, a nd the j uror s di d not hea r about hi s pl ea agr eem en t. ( The j ud ge i ssued an a rr estw ar ra nt f orM oo re wh en he f ai l ed to a pp e a r . T he wa r r a nt, h o we v e r, wa s n o ts e rv ed up on hi m , and the j ud ge concl ud ed duri ng post -tri al p roceed ings th a t t h e govern m en t had not take n su ffi c ien t ste ps to l oca te M oo re . The j ud ge nonethel ess fou n d th at M oo re ’s ab se n c e d id n otp rej u d ice t h e d efe n se .) T h e ju r o r s b e g a n d e lib e r a t in g o n a Th urs d ay afterno o n. At3 : 2 0 p . m. the n e xtda y, the c o ur tdi s c us s e d a j ury ques ti o n wi ththe pa r ti es a nd c o uns el, a nd the j ud ge i nd i cate d her i n tenti on t o answ erthe questi on by r efer r i ng th e j ur y to i ts pr ev i o us i ns tr uct ions. S he al so tol d the par ti es that the j ury “had sent an ea rl i er note thatIdi dn ’ t s ee any ne ed to ca l l yo u abo ut j ust sa y i ngthe y ’ d l i k e to l ea ve a t 3: 30 thi s afte r no on, a nd Ito l d them th ey coul d.” W hi l e the co urt w as sti l l di scus singthe que sti o n wi ththe pa r ti es , the j ur y s en t an oth er note th at it h a d r each ed a verd ict. Th e cou rt ass em bl ed the j uror s in the cour tr oo m , and the f or epe r s o n i nfo r med the c o ur ttha tthe j ur y h a d r e a c he d a10 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 unanim ous v er dict

. The c ou rt r ead the ver dict, wh i ch pr o no unc ed th e defen dan ts g ui l tyo n a l l c o unt s, a nd pol l ed the j uror s a t the defendants’ r equest. During t he po l l, the s ec o nd j ur o r a ns wer ed th atthe ve r di ctdi d no t r epr es en t he r i ndi vi dualv er di ct
. The co ur t r espon ded byt el l i ngthe j ur y, wi th o utc o nfer r i ng firs t w ith co u n se l: A l l r i ght. Then I ’ m going to ask that you peopl e g o b ac k t o t h e ju r y r o om . A t o n e p oin t y ou h ad ind icate d you wanted to l eave to day, but I ’ l l letyo u peopl e deci de w hat y ou want to do and del iber ate fu rt h er . W e do not have a unani m ous v er dict, so th at is all. The j ur o r s r eturne d t o the j ur y r o o m . The y s o o n s en t o ut a new not e that s ai d: “W e hav e a debate d si tuati on with a deci si on o n two of the c ounts. One, Count 2; two, C ou n t 3. M ay w e hav e a l i ttl e di re cti on i fposs ibl e? W hat o pti ons do w e have. C an a j urorbe ask ed to be dism i sse d i n a pr oce edi ngs?” The c o ur t an d c o uns eldi sc us se d ho w to r es po nd, a nd the c ourtdeci ded to sa y, “Pl ea se continue to del iber ate
. A j ur o r may no t be d ism i ss ed. ” A defen se a tt o r ne y e xpres se d t he vi ew thatthe j uror s m i ght t ake the dir ecti on to continu e to del iber ate to m ean that they ne eded to st ay lat er , an d th e jud ge res p on d e d t h at th ey h ad alre ady be en to l d th ey c oul d go hom e a t 3 : 30 that day. The j ur y r etur ne d wi tha v er di ctthat f o und the defe nd ants gui l ty on a l l co unts. The de fe nd a nt s e a c h r e c e i v e d a s e nt e nc e o ft we nty - fi ve yea rs’ im p ris onm ent. W e no te that the l ar ge quanti ty ofN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 11 drugs

— 1 5 k i l o g r a ms

— in vo l v e d in t h e fic tit iou s p lotin thi s ca se hel ped d ri ve the tw enty- fi ve- yea r sen te n ces ea c h d efe n d an t re c eiv ed

. See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1. 1 ( se tt i ng base o ffense l eve l at34 wh en qua n ti ty ofco cai ne i s a t l e as t 1 5 k i l o g r a ms b u tl e s s th a n 5 0 k i l o g r a ms )
. An d we h a v e c o mm en te d b e f o r e th a twe r e we p o l i c y ma k e r s , we m i g htque st i o n whe th er c o nc o ct i nga s ch eme inv o l ving a fi cti ti ous s tas h house re prese nts t h e p roper use o fl aw en for c e m en t re so u rc es . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cors on , 57 9 F
. 3d 804, 80 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. Tha t sa i d, we tu r n t o the de fen d an ts ’ arg u m en ts on ap p ea l.

II. A N A L Y S IS The defe nd ants urge u s to g rant them a new tr i alo n seve ral g r o u nd s. T he j ury d id n ot hea r abou t M oore’s pl eaa g r ee m en t o r the i nc en ti ve h e h ad t o g arne r the defen dan ts ’ a r r es ts , a nd the de fen dan ts a r g ue tha t th e j u r y s h o u l d h a v e h e a r d th i s i n f o r ma t i o n . Ho we v e r, we express no opi ni on o n the propri etyo fthi s a nd se ver al othe r ar gum ents. Fundam entalto o ur s ys te m o fcr i m i nal j us ti ce i s the r i ght t o be t ri ed by an i m parti alj ury that i s fre e fro m co er ci on, and w e f ocus on the defendants’ conte nti on tha t is sues re l ati ng to the j ury necess i tat e a n ew tria l.

A. J uryBi as The S i xth Am en dm en t o fthe Uni te d S tates Co ns ti tu
tion gu aran tees th e bed rock p rinciple of trial by an i m p art i a l ju r y. Sk illin g v . U nited Sta tes , 13 0 S
. Ct. 28 96, 29 12- 1312 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 (20 10 ); see al s o M urphy v. Fl or i da , 42 1 U.S
. 79 4, 79 9 ( 1975 ) ( “The const i tuti onal sta nd ar d o f f ai rnes s re quir es that a defen dan t ha ve ‘a pan elo fi m par ti al, ‘ i ndi ffer en t’ j uro rs . ’ ”) ( quoti ng Ir vi n v . Dowd, 366 U
. S. 717, 72 2 ( 1961 ))
. This guar antee m eans “a j ury that deter m i nes guil t o n the b asi s o fthe j ud ge’ s ins tr ucti ons and the e vi dence i ntro du ced at tr i al, as di sti nct fro m p re concepti ons or othe r extr aneous sour ces ofdeci si on. ” O s waldv. Ber t r and, 374 F.3d 475 , 477 (7th C ir. 2004). T h e d efe n d an ts co n te n d th at th ey w er e d en ied th e ir ri ght t o a n im parti alj ury by the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r efusal to em panel a new ve ni re o r, theysa y, to i nv es ti gat e bi as proper l y a fteri t be cam e know n that t h e prospecti ve j uror s were disc ussi ng the i r safetyfear s in ligh t o f the defendants’ a c cess to thei r perso nali nfo rm ati on i ncl ud i ng the i r nam es, o ccupati ons, and ag es and occupati ons ofthei r chi l dren. A s a ge nera l r ule , we l eave m atter s r el ati ng to j ury select ion t o the s ound d i scr eti on of t h e t ria l j u d ge . Ski l l i ng, 1 3 0 S. C t. at 29 17 -18 ; U nited State s v. Va squ ez -Ruiz , 502 F.3d 700 , 704 (7th C ir. 2007). B u t t h at d isc re tio n is n otu n fet te re d , se e Va squ ez -R uiz , 502 F. 3d at 704, and a ff or ding a defe nd ant d u e p ro c ess r e qu i r e s n o to nl y “ a j ur y c a pab l e a nd wi l l i ngt o de c i de the c ase so l el y o n the evi dence before i t, ” but al so “a tri alj udg e ev erwat ch fult o pr ev en t pr ej udi ci alo cc urre nces and to deter m ine the effect ofsuch o ccurr ences w hen theyhappen.” Sm i t h v. P hil lips , 45 5 U.S
. 20 9, 217 (1982 ). The appropri ate pro cedure w hen p otenti alj urorbi as presen ts i ts el f“ i s a func ti o n o fthe pr o babi l i tyo fb i as ; theN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 13 greater th at p robab il ity, the m ore s e a rch ing the i nq uiry ne ed ed to m ake r eason ably su re th at an un biased jury i s i m panel ed. ” O sw a ld, 3 74 F
. 3d at4 80
. Tha t ev eno ne j uror ’ s “ peace ofm i nd ” was affecte d can be enough t o d ep riv e a d efe n d an t o f a fair tria l. S e e Un i t e d S t at e s v. Si m t ob , 4 85 F.3 d 1 05 8, 1 06 4 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( va ca tingc o nvi ct i o n a nd r emandi ngf o r fur th erpr o ce eding s i n l i g ht ofco urt’ s f ai l ure to i nvest i ga te p ote nti alj urorprej ud i ce aftera j u ro r in f or m ed the cour t that he fel t threa tened b y t h e d e fen d an t’s “e ye -b allin g” h im ); see also U nited S t a t e s v . Mar t i n ez - S a l azar, 528 U
. S. 30 4, 31 6 ( 2000 ) ( “ [ T] he s e a t i ng o f a ny j ur o r who s ho ul d ha v e b e e n dism iss ed for c au se . . . req u ire [s] re ve rs al.” )
. A n d in th is ca se i t was not j us t o ne j ur o r who ha d e xpr es se d c o nce r n tha t th e defend an ts ha d a cc es s to the que st i o nnai re s; the j ud ge’ s u n d er sta nd i ng was “thattheyal l sa w i t a nd theyal l were tal ki ng ab out i t. ” Thi s i s no t a cas e, th en, of sp ecu lation abou t w he th er j ury m em bers m igh t ha ve fea re d for th eir sa fet y. T h ey d id h er e. T h is i s a l s o n o t a c a s e o f s p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t w h e th e r j u r y me mb e r s mi g hth ave be e n di s c us s i nga nyfe a r s the y h e l d. T h ey d id th at h er e a s w ell. I n l i ght of the r eve l ati on that the wh ol e v eni re had been exposed to the disc ussi ons of fear f orper sonalsa fety, the defe n dants were concerned that they w oul d not re cei ve a f ai r tr i alfr om per sons w ho m i ght ha ve prej ud g e d the c a s e o r we r e mo t i v a t e d by fe a r o r p r e c o nc e pti o n. T he y i m m edi at ely r eque st ed a ne w poo l o r, a t th e l eas t, i nd ividual questi oni ng o fthe pros pecti ve j uror s. They r ecei ved nei ther

. I t i s c er tai nl y t rue that not all a lleg at ion s o f j u ro r b ias or m isc on d u c t re q u ire ind i-14 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 vid u aliz ed vo ir d ire
. Va sq uez-Ruiz , 5 0 2 F .3 d at70 6; see a lso U nited Sta tes v. Sta ffo rd, 13 6 F
. 3d 1109 , 11 12- 13 ( 7th Cir. 1 99 8). W e a l so re cogni ze that “co urts f ace a del i c a t e a nd c o mpl e x t a s k whe ne v e r the y un de r t a k e to i nv esti g at e r epo r ts o fj ur o r mis co nduc t o r b i as dur i ng th e co ur se o f a tr i al

. . . . [ A]n y s uchi nv es ti g at i o n i s i nt r us i v e a nd ma y c r e a t e p r ej u d i c e b y e x a g g e r a t i n gth e i mport ance a nd im p act ofwh at m ay have been an i nsi gni fi cant inci dent. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . A b r a ms , 137 F
. 3d 704, 708 (2d Cir. 1998). N one th eless, w e find t h e p r oced ure i n th is case insu ffi ci en t unde r th e ci r cumst an ce s. The fi r st im p o r ta nt ci r cumst an ce i s, as we ha ve al r ea dy emphas i ze d, the w i despread nature ofthe disc u ssio ns am ong the j uror s. U nl i ke case s where a j ud ge dec id es aga i nst ind i vi du al vo i r di r e o fthe e nt i r e pan ela t th e r isk of c onj ur i ngup new fear s a m ong previ ousl y unexposed j uror s, i nd i vi du al que st ioning he r e di d no t r un the s ame r i sko fpl an ting a new c onc ern in an yon e’s m ind since allthe ven ire m em b er s w er e p ar t o f th e d isc u ss ion
. Cf. U nited State s v. M cAnd e rs on , 9 14 F
. 2d 93 4, 94 3- 44 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0) ( affi r m i ng d ecision not to i nd ivi d ua ll y qu estion re m aining j urors ab o utfea r o r b i as a fte r j udg e r emov ed j uro r s who ha d received or he ard abou t t hrea ten ing p hon e calls)

. I n a ddi t i o n, a l tho ugh i twa s u nd e r s t o o d tha tthe di scussi ons ofsa fetyco n c er ns were w i despread, no j uror w as ask ed w hat had be en sa i d i n the i nter nal di scussi ons. C f. Va sq uez-Ruiz , 50 2 F
. 3d at 707 ( f ai l ure to questi on ind ivi d ua l j urors “left a voi d i n th e record ”). N ot abl y, the i denti calsi tuati on had al re ady ar i sen wi th th e fi r s tp a n e l o fj u r o r s , a n d th e j u d g e a ndN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 15 pros ecuto r agr eed the n th at an i nd i vi du ali nquir y o f each j urorwas needed. A fterquesti oni ng o nl y fou r of the j uror s in t he fi rs t t ri al, the effect w as al re ady so obvi ous that the j ud ge sta ted, “Idoubt w e’ll need to go th ro u gh [all] 12 [j u ro rs ].” T h e c ou rtu ltim at ely gr anted a m ist ri ali n the fi rs t t ri al, with no o bj ecti on f ro m the gov er nm ent, and i t s tat ed a t o ne poi nt “s o m an y of th em w ere involve d i n th e d iscus sion th at I’ m n otsu re w e a re goin g t o b e a b le t o s olv e t h is.” W hen the sam e i ssue ar ose with the se cond gro up o f j uror s, however, the cour t di d n ot i nd i vi du al l y quest i on th e j ur ors. Thatwas de spi te the de fen se ’ s o bj ec ti o n, and al so despit e the go ver nm ent’s re cogni ti on that e ach j urorsho uld be questi oned o n e at a ti m e, with the pro sec u to r st at in g, “I j u st d on ’t s ee h ow you ca n d o it w ith o u t b r i n gin g in ev er y on e in d ivid u ally

. . . .” It is h ar d to se e a d iffer en c e be tw ee n th e firstan d se c on d tria ls th atc o uns el ed ag ains t i ndi vi d ua l que st i o ni ngi n the seco nd

. I n the fi rs t t ri al, the i ssue ar ose afte r tw o days of tr i alhad al re ady be en hel d. The peti t j ury had been sel ecte d, the par ti es had prese nted openi ng st ate m ents, the g ove rnm ent had pre sente d i ts dir ect exam i nati on o f i ts pri nci pal witnes s, A gent Gom ez, and the defe nd an ts wer e i nt o the thi r d cro ss - ex ami na ti o n o fthe a g en t. But a j ury had not e ven be en se l ecte d w hen t h e i ssue ar ose in th e s ec on d tria l. T h e fa c t t h at t h e i s s u e aro se so ea rly in th e s ec on d tria l w ou ld s ee m to m ak e itan ea sie r d ec isi o n t o s t a r to v e r tha n i n the fi r s tt r i a l

. As the di s t r i ct c ou rtsa id w h en d ec la r i n g a m ist ria l in t h e firs t t ria l, “If th is w as tw o w ee ks int o t h e t ria l, it w ou ld be a litt le to u gh er ca ll.”16 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 The onl y di scernabl e di ffer ence i n the re cor d as t o w h y th e sam e pr oc ed u re of qu es tio n in g eac h j u r o r in d ivi dual l y was no t foll owed i n the s ec o nd t r i ali s th atthe j udg e pl anne d to si t by des i g na ti o n o n an o th er cou rt th e f o l l o wi ngT ue s da y a nd tha ta nyde l a y i n j ur y se l ecti o n mi g htha ve i nt er fer ed wi ththa t sc he dul e. W he n the seco nd veni re ’ s safety concerns w er e re veal ed , defense co uns el r eque st ed a ne w j ur y po o l, an d th e fo l l o wi ng c oll o q u y t r a n s p i r e d b e t w e e n th e c o u r ta n d d efe n se co u n se l: CO U N SEL: J ud ge, the w ay I w oul d w ei gh i n on

thi s i s w e ar e i n the exact si tuati on w e were i n the l astti m e. J U DG E: Iam notgo i ng to t ake ev er y o ne o f

th es e 55 pe o pl e ag ain. COU N S EL: Iunde r sta nd tha t, b utthe y ’ ve e xpr es se d the s ame c o nc ern tha t th e l a s tv e ni r e e xp r e s s e d. J UD GE: Idon’t ev enkno w w hy

. Ido n’ t underst and i t. CO U N SEL: A nd bec au se ofthat, Ithi nk the y’ ve

al re ady exp re sse d som e ki nd of deep sea ted

— J UDGE: Ok a y . I f y o u ha v e s o methingt o a dd,

orar e y ou di sag reeing w i th wh at Ipro posed befor e If or geti t? CO U N SEL: M y pos i ti on i s tha t w e s houl d l et

th e s e p e o p l e g o , we s h o u l d c o me ba ckM o nda y a nd t r y i t ag ain.N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 17 J U DG E: W el l, we w on’ t be abl e t o do thatbecau se w e m ight not finish before Ihave to si t o n the Feder alCi rcui t. COU N S EL: The n Ithi nk, Ido n’ t th i nkmy c l ie nt

ca n g eta f ai r t r i al

. I j us t do n’ t th i nk h e ca n, b ec au se I th in k th ey ’v e a lre ady expre sse d

— J U DG E: N ow you’ re j ust m aki ng spee ches

no w atthi s po i nt
. Br i ngthe j ur o r s i n. W he n the i d en tic ali ss ue a r o se wi ththe fi r stg r o up ofj urors , the g ove rnm ent a rgued fo r an i nd i vi du al i zed i nquir y. I t di d the s eco nd ti m e t oo . A l though di str i ct j u d ge s h av e d i s c re tio n in d ec id in g h ow to h an d le i nstance s o fpote nti alj u ror bi as, thatdi scr eti on m ust be b as ed on p ro p er fac to rs . Se eVe r izon Com m c’ ns, Inc . v. Inver izon Int’ l , 29 5 F .3d 87 0, 87 2- 73 ( 8th Ci r. 20 02) ( an abuse ofdi scr eti on o ccurs wh en an i rr el evanto r i m pr o perf ac to r i s co ns i der ed an d g i ve n s i g ni fi ca nt w eight); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob e r t s on , 4 5 F.3 d 1423, 14 38- 39 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 199 5 )
. I ta pp e a r s fr o m t he r e c o r d tha ts c he duli n g c on cer ns were the b asi s f orthe deci si on notto co nduc t i ndi vi dualv o i r di r e t he s ec o nd t i m e th e i ss ue ar os e. Cf. U ni te d S t at e s v. Thor nt on , 1 F. 3d 149, 15 5- 56 ( 3d C ir. 1993) (affi rm ing d ecision not to qu estion j urors i nd i vi du al l y wh en tr i alj ud ge w ei ghed the potenti al em phasi s tha t cam e fro m questi oni ng j uror s a gai nst th e pr o babl e ex te nta nd g r av i tyo fthe m i sc o nduc t an d co nc l ude d tha t i ndi vidualv o i r di r e woul d m ak e th e situat ion w orse).18 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 W e a re m i nd ful ofthe d iscr eti on di str i ct j ud ges have when det er m i ni ng whethe r a j ur y i s bi as ed an d o f the defe re nce we pay to a dist ri ct j ud ge’ s dete rm i nati on that a jur y c an rem ain im p ar tia l. A s t h e S u p re m e C ou rtsa id re centl y, “Revi ew i ng co urts ar e pr oper l y r esi sta nt to seco n d -g ue ssing th e trialj ud ge’s estim ation of a j uror’s i m par ti al i ty, f or tha t j udg e’ s appr ai sa l i s o r di na r i l y i nfl ue nc ed b y a host of f acto rs i m p ossible to cap tu re ful l y i n the r ecord

— a m ong them , the p rosp ective j uror’s i nfl ecti on, sincer i ty, dem eanor, can dor, bo dy l anguage , and app re hensi on o fduty. ” Ski l l i ng, 13 0 S
. Ct. at29 18. H er e, h ow ev er , th os e s am e c on sid er at ion s a re n otin pl ay, a s th e j udg e di d no t i ndi vi dual l y que st i o n the j uror s a t i ssue. W e a l so und er sta nd the concern that a defen dan t co ul d a ffi r m at i ve l y m ak e j ur o r s fea r fula nd th ent r y t o b en efi t f r o m a mor e f o cused inqui r y, b ut th er e i s no s ug g es ti o n i n thi s case th at i t was the de fen d an ts ’ c o n d u c t t h at m ad e t h e jur or s u n c om for ta b le. C f. U nit e d S t at e s v. O wen s , 426 F.3d 800 , 805 (6th C ir. 2005). A nd we do no t s a y tha t i nd i v i du a l i z e d v o i r di r e i s nec essaril y req u ir e d every tim e a j ury ex p resses co nc ern th atde fen dan ts ha ve acc es s to i nf o r m at i o n abo ut them

. U n d er the ci rcum sta nces ofthi s par ti cul arcas e, how eve r, we fi nd the i nquir y ina d eq u ate. This i s no t t o s u g g e s tth a tth e j u d g e s h o u l d h a v e c a n c e l l e d h e r c o mmi t men tt o s i tby d e s i g na t i o n, a p r a c t i c e we ful l y s up po r t. Her e, tho ug h, we ca nno t di sc ern an y b as i s f r o m the r e c o r d wh y thi s s ho r tt r i a l c o ul d n o th a v e b e e n r e s c he duled to anoth er da te. N o s p e ed y tri al conce rns w ere ra i sed, i t was the defendants wh o req ueste d a new p anel of jur or s, an d th ey ex p re ss ed n o s c h ed u lin g c on flict s. InN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 19

I ti s n o to u r p l a c e t o s u g g e s tth e b e s tme th o d f o r a dd r e s s i ng 1 j urors’ s af ety c oncerns, if th at i s a rec urring problem , as that i s a mat t e r f o r th e di s t r i c t c o u r t t o a dd r e s s . T h a t t he i s s ue aro se tw ice in th is case m a y w e l l h av e b een a fluk e. W e also no te thatal thoughthe j ur y c oor di nat or i nf or m ed the j udge thats he w ould as se m ble fifty new persons f or the s econd v enir e, i ti s pos s ib le tha t a m em ber ofthe fi rs tj ur y s poke with a m e m b e r o ft h e se c o n d v e n i r e a n d e x p r e ss e d th e fi r st ju r y ’s con cern s. f ac t, we do no t se e an y i ndi ca ti o n i n the recor d tha t th e cour t o r counselwere unavai l abl e s oo n afterth e j ud ge r etur ne d fr o m s i tt i ngb y de si g na ti o n. 1 The go ver nm ent arg u es that ev en i fthe i nquir y was unsati sf acto ry, the defe nd ants shoul d not r ece ive a new t r i a l b e c a u s e i tma i n t a i n s th e y w e r e n o tp r ej u d i c e d

. We no te th at indo i ngs o , i t tr ea ts the j ur o r s’ s afety c o nc erns as an ex te rn al in flu en c e. C o m pa re Sim to b, 485 F. 3d at 1064, w ith, e .g., U nited Sta tes v. Lo pez , 27 1 F
. 3d 47 2, 48 9 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 1)
. The de fen dan ts , po i nt ing to ca se s i nc l udi ng O sw a ld, 374 F. 3d at 482, conte nd that the righ t t o be tr i ed bef or e a n i m parti alj ury i s s tr uctura l s uch that they need not show prej ud i ce and a re not subj ect to harm l ess er ro r re vi ew . W hi l e we note that e ven under the gov er nm ent’ s posi ti on, i t w oul d hav e the burden to re but the pre sum pti on o fpre j ud i ce fro m an e xter nal i n f l u e n c e o n th e jur y, se e Va sq uez-Ruiz , 5 0 2 F
. 3 d a t7 0 5, w e nee d not r eso l ve the i ssue as the defendant s p oint to a n o t h e r so u rc e o f err or as w ell. See U nited Sta tes v. A llen , 269 F
. 3 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ Cu mul a t i v e e r r o rs , w hi l e ind i vid ual l y har m l ess , wh en ta ken t oge thercan20 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 p rej u d ice a d efe n d an t a s m u c h as a sin gle rev er sib le er ro r and vi ol ate a defe nd ant’ s r i ght t o du e pr oc ess o f l a w. ” )
. We tu r n th e r e n o w.

B . I ns t ruc t i o n t o C o nt i nue t he De l i be r a t i o ns A fter the cour t re ad a ver dict that sta ted the defendants ha d b ee n f o und gui l tyo n a l l c o unt s, a po l l o fthe j ur ors r ev ea l ed th atthe p ubl i sh ed ve r di ctdi d no t r epr es en t th e i ndi vi dual ve r di ct o f ea ch o f th e j urors. The d efend an ts con ten d that sub seq ue nt direc t ions th e j ury r e c e i v e d t o c o n t i n ue d e l ib e r a t i n g, a ta n d a ft e r th e t i me that the j ury had al re ady r equeste d an d recei ved perm i ssi on t o l eave f orthe w ee ke n d , were coe rci ve and necessit at e a n ew tria l. “The pri nci ple thatj uror s m ay not be c oer ced i nto surr enderi ng vi ew s co nsci enti ousl y hel d i s s o cl earas to re quir e no el abor ati on. ” Jenk ins v . U nited Sta tes , 380 U
. S. 445, 44 6 ( 1965 ) ( per curi am )
. Our as ses sm ent o fwh ether i nstr ucti ons to the j ury w er e i m perm i ssibl y c oer ci ve l oo ks to “ ‘ w hetherthe cour t’ s co m m unica ti ons press ured th e j ur[or s] t o s ur r en derthe i r ho ne sto pi ni o ns f o r the mer e p ur po s e o fr e t urninga v e r di c t
. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Crot t e au , 21 8 F
. 3d 826, 83 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00 ) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. K ram er, 95 5 F
. 2d 479, 48 9 ( 7t h C i r. 19 92) )
. Even though a j ud ge m i ght ha ve the b est ofi ntenti ons, i nnoc e n t ly in te n d ed d ire c tio n s c an st ill be c oe rc ive
. U ni ted Sta tes v. C ha ney, 5 5 9 F .2 d 10 94 , 109 8 (7 th C ir. 19 77 ). In C ha ney, f orexam ple , the j u d ge gav e a supplem ental i ns t r uc t i o n t o the j ur o r s a t 1 2 : 2 0 a . m. tha t s a i d, “I fyo u do no t ar r i ve a t a ve r di ctthe n the j ur y wi l l b e br o ug htN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 21 into th e cou rt tom orrow m o rning at 9: 30 an d the C ou rt wi l l th e n d e t e r m i n e w h a t c o u r s e s h o u l d b e t a k e n . ” We rul ed that the j u ro rs co uld have understo od the dir ecti on to meantha t th eymustr ea cha v er di ctto a vo i d b eing re quir ed to st ay unti l 9: 30 a. m ., or th at they m ust del ibe r at e unt i l re ac hi nga v er di ct, o r tha t th e co ur t m i g ht r equi r e th em to cont i nue de l ibe r at i ngi n the mor ni ng eve n though they had been without s l eep. In l i ght o f these pote nti ali nfe re nces, we concl ud ed th at the i nstr uctio n, alth ou gh inn oc en tly giv en , req u ire d a n ew tria l. Id. I n thi s case, the j uror s began deliber ati ng on a Thursday a ft e r n o o n a n d b e g a n a g a i n th e n e x tmo r n i n g . S o me t i me on F ri day, the j uror s sent a not e that r equeste d perm i ssi on to l eav e tha tda y b y 3 : 3 0 p . m. , a nd the j ud g e r e s po nded that they coul d. A t a b ou t 3:2 0 p. m . , the j ury sent a no te w i th a que s t i o n a b o utthe r e qu i r e men t s f o r c o nv i cti on o n on e of th e ch arges. W hile the j ud ge an d pa rties w ere di sc us singho w to r es po nd t o the que st i on, the j ur y s en t anothe r note thatsa i d i t had r eached a ver dict

. The cour t br ought the j uror s into the c ou rt ro om . A fter an n ou nci ng a ver dictthatco nvi cted the defendants o n al l co unts, the cour t p olle d the j uror s a t the defendants’ r eque st, a nd the s ec o nd j ur o r po l l ed r es po nde d tha t th e p ub li sh ed verd ict d id n ot rep resen t her ind ivi d ua l verdict . T h e d efendants co ntend on appealthatatthi s poi nt, th e j ud ge shoul d have g i ven the i nstr ucti on we approve d i n U nited Sta tes v. Silv ern , 4 84 F.2d 879, 88 3 (7th C ir. 1973), w hi ch pro vi des: The ver dictm u st r epres ent the co nsi dered j ud gm en t o f ea c h j u ro r. In or d er t o r e tu rn a ve rd ict, i t22 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 i s ne ce ss ar y tha t each ju r o r a g r ee the r et o . Yo ur ve rd ict m u st be u n an im ou s. I t i s y o urduty, a s j ur o r s, t o cons ult wi tho ne an o th era nd t o de l ibe r at e wi tha v i ew t o r ea ch i ng an agr eem ent, i f you can do so w i th ou t v i ol ence t o i nd i v i du a l j ud g men t
. Ea c h o fy o u mus tde c i de th e c a s e f o r y o u r s e l f, b u td o s o o n l y a ft e r a n i mpar t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o fth e e v i d e n c e wi th y o ur fell ow j uror s. I n the cour se ofyo ur del iber ati ons, d o n o th e s i t a t e t o r e e x a mi n e y o u r o wnv i e ws and change y our opi ni on ifconvi nced i t i s e rr oneous. But do notsur re nd eryo ur ho nest convi cti on as to the wei ght o r effect ofev i denc e so l el y b ecause ofthe opi ni on o fy our fel l ow j uror s, o r f or th e m e r e pu rp ose of r etu rning a verd ict. You are not parti sans. Y ou are j ud ges

—j ud ges of the f acts
. Your sol e i nter est i s to asce rt ai n the tr ut h fro m the e vi dence i n the case . Du ring disc ussi ons w i th the tr i al j ud ge, however, defense counselst ate d i t di d no t th in k a Silv ern i nstr ucti on was a go o d id ea th en, so ou r review of th e requ est for a Silv ern in st ru c tio n is for p lain err or . Se eU ni t e d S t at es v. Jo nes , 600 F.3d 847, 856 (7th C ir. 2010). The j ury m ust be d ea d locked bef or e a Silv ern i nstr uctio n is re q u ire d

. See U nited Sta tes v. D egr a f f e nried , 33 9 F.3 d 57 6, 58 0 (7th C i r . 2 00 3); U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 15 9 F. 3d 1106 , 11 01- 11 (7th Cir

. 19 98)
. The j uror ’ s r esponse du ring th e p ollthatthe ver dictas publi shed did not r eflect h er o wn ve r di ctmean t th er e was no t a una ni m o us ve rd i ct, but i t di d not nec ess ar i l y m ean the j ury w asN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 23 d ea d loc ke d

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Car raw ay, 10 8 F
. 3d 745, 75 2 (7th Cir
. 1997 ) ( per curi am )
. A s w e expla i ned in Carraway, “[W ]hen the cou r t d ecid ed

. . . to have the j ury co nt i nue de l ibe r at i ng

— afterpol l i n g ofthe j ury had been i nter rupted by the j uror ’ s a nnouncem ent that s he di sagr eed with the gui l ty ver dictag ai n st Carr aw ay

— th ere w as no cl eari nd i cati on that the j ury w as deadlo cked a s to Carr aw ay’ s cul pabi l i ty and that furtherdeliberat i o ns wo ul d b e fr ui t l e s s . T he j ur y h a d, a ft e r a l l, s i g ne d a unanim ous v er dictas to Carr aw ay, and the re aso n f or the obj ecting j uro r’s se cond thoughts were ( and are ) unknow n. ” Id

. T h e s a me r e a s o n i n gh o l d s t r u e h e r e . We do not know w hy the j u ro r responded thatthe pu bl i shed ver dictdi d not r epres ent he r in d ividual ve rdi ct, an d , m or e i m port antl y, ther e was no i nd i cati on that fur th erde l ibe r ati o ns woul d no t be he l pful

. The r e was no pla i n er ro r w hen the j ury did notr ecei ve a Silv ern i nstr ucti on a t that j uncture. The l ack ofa Si l ve r n i nstr ucti on a t thi s poi nt ( and note that the j ury had rec ei ved the Silv ern i ns tr uct ion a s o ne ofi ts i nstr ucti ons bef or e i t be gan del iber ati ng) , the re fore, was no t a pr o bl em i n an d of its el f

. The di r ec ti o n t o c o nt i n u e d e l ib e r a t i n ga ft e r th e p o l l r e v e a l e d a l a c ko fu n a n i mity als o w as n otinh er en tly p ro b lem at ic, s e eCar r away, 108 F. 3d at 752, as r eflec ted i n Rule 31 ( d) o fthe Feder al R u les of C rim in al P ro c ed u re : A fte r a ver dict i s re turned but bef or e the j ury is disc harg ed, the cour t m ust on a party ’ s request, o r m a y o n its ow n, po ll th e jur or s in d ivid u ally . I f th e po llreveals a l ack of un an im it y , t h e cou rt24 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144

m ay dir ect the j ury to del iber ate furthero r m ay decl ar e a m i str i aland dis charg e the j ury. H o wev er, o urrevi ew do es no t en d the r e, a s th e defen dants al so conte nd thatt h e c ourt ’ s co m m unica ti ons after th e po l l wer e co er ci ve o funa ni m i ty
. Thi s ar g um en t r equi r es tha t we c o ns i derthe d i r ec ti o ns g i ve n b y the tr ial c ou rtin “ ‘c on te x t an d u n d er all th e c irc u m st an c es .’ ” Lowe nf i e l d v
. Phe l ps , 4 84 U. S
. 2 31 , 2 37( 19 88 ) ( qu o ting Je nki ns , 38 0 U.S. at44 6)
. A l though Rul e 3 1( d) a l l ows a j u d ge to d ire c t t h e ju ry to d elib er at e fu rth er if a p oll re veal s a l ack ofunani m i ty, i t doe s no t a l l ow, ofco urse , f o r di r ec ti o ns tha t ar e co er ci ve . And a lthou g h we fi nd no pl ai n er ro r i n the f act that th e j uror s di d not r ecei ve a Silv ern i ns tr uct i o n a fte rthe po l l, the po l i cyb eh i nd the Silv ern i ns tru ction m a t ters: a j uror sh ou ld n ot “su rre nd erhi s ho nest convi cti on a s t o the weigh t oreffect ofev id en ce s ol el y b ecause o fthe opi ni on o fhi s fel l ow j u ro rs , or for th e m er e pu rp os e of re tu rn in g a v e rd ict .” Silv ern , 48 4 F
. 2d at 883 n. 5. The j uror s had as ked ea rl i eri n the d ay t o leav e by 3: 30 p. m . and bee n to l d they coul d. N onethel ess , wh en th e j ur y r etur ne d a v er di ctv er y c l o se t o that tim e an d the s eco nd j urorpol l ed answered thatthe pu bl i shed ver dictdi d not r epres ent h ero w n, the cour t f ol l owed that j uror ’ s r esponse by st ati ng: A ll righ t. T h en I’m g o i n g t o a sk th at you p eo p le go backto the j ury ro om . A t one poi nt yo u had i nd i cate d you wanted to leav e t oday, but I ’ l ll et you peopl e deci de w hat you want to do a nd del iberate fur th er . W e do no t ha ve a una ni m o us ve rd ict, so th at is all.N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 25 Thi s di r ec ti ve t o c o nt i nue de l ibe r ating was i ss ue d r i g ht ar ound 3: 30 p.m
. , the ti m e that the j ury had al re ady as ked f o r a nd r ec ei ve d p er m i ss i o n t o l ea ve . I t ca m e wi th o ut the c avea t that i fthe j uror s s ti ll wanted to l eave at 3: 30 p. m . tha t day, the y c o ul d do s o b y s i m pl y te ll in gthe j u d ge . Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tal ki ngt on , 87 5 F
. 2d 591, 59 6- 97 (7th C ir. 1989) (direc tion not coercive th at asked j urors w hethertheywished to ( 1) co nti nue del iber at in g for anothe r ho ur, o r ( 2 ) g o e i the r ho me o r t o a ho t e l f or th e ev en i nga nd c o nt i nue de l ibe r at i ngthe ne xtmor ni ng at 10 :00 a.m .). It als o c am e w ith ou t c o n s u l t i n g c ou n se l; hear i ng fro m the parti es outsi de the j ury ’s p re sence m i ght ha ve yield ed a re sponse to the j ury up on wh i ch all c ou ld ag re e. Cf. Tal ki ngt on , 87 5 F
. 2d at 597. On thei r f ace, the dir ecti ons the j uror s r ecei ved after th e po l l s ug g es te d tha t th e j ur o r s co ul d no t l ea ve f o r the day unti l t h ey had a unani m ous v er dict, despi te thei r previ ous r equest to ha ve a lready l eft bythat poi n t. P er haps the sta tem ent, “At one poi nt yo u had i nd i cate d you wanted to l eave to day, but I ’ l l l et you p eop le d e c ide w ha t you w an t to do an d de liberat e furth er, ” ha d b ee n i nt en ded as a n i nv i ta ti o n f o r the j ur ors t o l ea ve for t h e d ay if th ey w ish ed in ligh t o f th eir ea rlier req u es t t o d ep ar t a t 3 :3 0 p .m . U n for tu n at ely , i t re ads as the opposi te, es peci al l y s i nce i t w as prece ded by a di re c tio n t o return to the j ury ro om and f ol l owed by the s tat em ent, “W e do not have a unani m ous v er dict, so th at is all.” A t t h e t i m e of th at d ire c tio n, ap p ar en tly on ly a sin gle vo t e s t o o d b e t we e n th e d e fe n d a n t s a n d c o n v i c t i o n, a nd26 N os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144

ca r e was e spe ci al l y i m po r ta nt. The j ur o r s so o n s en t o ut anothe r note co nfi rm i ng the i r disa gr eem ent: “W e have a debated si tu at ion with a deci si on o n two ofthe counts. T h e y a r e a s f o l l o ws : O n e , C o u n t2 ; t wo , C o u n t3
. Ma y we ha v e a l i t t l e di r e c t i o n i f tha t i s po s s ib l e ? Ca n a j uror be ask ed to be dis m iss ed i n a pr oce edi ngs?” The cour t di sc u ss ed th e n ot e w ith co u n se l an d in d ica te d it w ou ld answ erwith the di re cti on, “Pl eas e co nti nue to del iber ate
. A j urorm ay n ot be di sm i sse d.” One defense counsel re s po nd e d wi th c o nc e r n tha tthe j ur o r s mi g htt a k e s uch a di re cti on to m ean they coul d not l eave as ea rl y a s th ey w an te d an d st at ed , “ ‘ P lea se co n tin u e t o d elib er at e.’ M aybe thatm eans they’ l l thi nk the y hav e t o sta y t onight. Im ean, m aybe

— ” The co urt re sponded , “W ell, they have al re ady be en to l d they can g o h om e. ” To that, defe nse c ounselr esponded w i th the am bi guous, “Okay ,” w hich c o u ld w ellbe an ac kn ow ledgm en t tha t the cou rt ha d ruled against it. Th e bottom l ine is th a t th e j urors w er e a ga in to l d w i thout cave at to continue del iber ati ng, d e s p i t e th e i r r e q u e s te a r l i e r i n th e d a y t o l e a v e b y 3 : 3 0 p . m. W e do not know w hy j uror s had asked to l eave thatday by 3: 30 p. m . , o r w hetherth e h old out j urorneeded or w anted to l eave by that ti m e on that par ti cul arday. W hat w e d o kno w i s th atthe j ur o r s m aywel l ha ve und ersto od the post- pol l i nstru c tions to m ean that they n ee d ed to ret u rn a u n an im ou s v er d ict i m m ed iat ely if they sti l l w an te d to l eave atthei r re quested ti m e. Even though the effect w as uninte nti onal, under these circum stan ces, w e con clud e t ha t the i ns tru ctions w ere i m perm i ssibl y c oer ci ve. These dir ecti ons, al ong w i th the inadequ acy ofthe in q uir y into the j uror s’ sa fetyN os. 08

- 3511 , 08

- 3549 , 08

- 3885 & 08

- 4144 27

concerns, l ead us t o concl ud e that t h e d efendants sh ou ld rec eiv e a n ew tria l.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s V ACATED , a nd the defendants wil l r ecei ve a new tr i al

. Ci rcui t Rul e 3 6 shal l apply

.

9- 3- 10