# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 31 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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 la nt

v.

Ja vi er Am ay a

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 3

Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 23 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, BEAM, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

A jury fo un d Ja vi er Am ay a gu il ty of on e co un t of co ns pi racy to la un de r m on ey , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (a)( 1) (B)( i). The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d ap pe ll ee’s 1

The Hon or ab le Mar k W

. Ben ne tt

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.m ot io n fo r a n e w t r i a l

. Th e go ve rn m en t no w ap pe al s th e gr an t of a ne w tri al

. W e

affi rm

.

I.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed br ot he rs Ang el Am ay a an d Ja vi er Am ay a an d two ot he rs

fo r co ns pi racy to co m

m it mo n e y la un de rin g in vo lv in g pr oc eed s of un la wfu l dr ug

act iv it ie s. The gr an d jury al so ch arg ed Ang el an d fo ur ot he rs wit h a dr ug co ns pi racy

of fen se

. All de fen da nt s ex cep t t he Am ay a b ro th ers en te red gu il ty ple as . After two

m is tri al s, t he cas e ag ai ns t t he Am ay as was fi na ll y su bm it te d t o a jury.

Dur in g th e Am ay a br ot he rs ’ fo ur -d ay joi nt tri al

, th e g ov ern m en t pr es en te d

ev id en ce s ho win g th at on Feb ru ary 8, 20 11

, Ja vi er op en ed a ba nk acco un t wit h a

W el ls Farg o Ban k br an ch in Si ou x Ci ty, Io wa, us in g hi s own na m e an d bi og rap hi cal

in fo rm at io n. Ang el was wit h J a v ie r whe n th e acco un t was op en ed

, an d Ja vi er

de po si te d $7 80 0 i n c as h p ro vi de d b y Ang el in to th e acc ou nt . When th e te ll er, who

was Ang el ’s fri en d, as ke d Ang el whe re th e m on ey cam e fro m , Ang el rep li ed

, “ do n’t

wor ry ab ou t it

, y ou do n’t wan t to kn ow.” Ang el al so op en ed a ne w acco un t th at da y , de po si ti ng $8 00 0 in to it

. Two of Ang e l ’s a s s o c ia te s op en ed ne w W el ls Farg o

a c c o u n ts on Feb ru ary 8 an d ei th er de po si te d or ha d de po si te d in to th em $8 10 0 an d

$8 00 0, res pe ct iv el y

. Im

m ed ia te ly aft er op en in g th es e acco un ts

, th e fo ur tra ve le d to

Cal ifo rn ia

. On Feb ru a r y 1 0 a n d 11

, 20 11

, th e fo ur wit hd rew th e m on ey fro m th ei r

acco un ts an d ga ve it to Ang el who us ed th e m on ey to pa y a pe rs on kn own as el Pai sa

.

The go ve rn m en t al so pr es en te d ev id en ce to th e jury in cl ud in g th e te st im on y of

wit ne ss es th at whe n Ang el was no t ho m e th at Ja vi er di st rib ut ed dr ug s to bu y ers , th at

pu rch as ers le ft pa y m en t fo r Ang el wit h Ja vi er, an d th at Ja vi er was pr es en t whe n Ang el di st rib ut ed dr ug s an d di sc us se d ob ta in in g la rg e qu an ti ti es of dr ug s fo r res al e.

-2

-W he n th e jury ret ur ne d, th e fo rep er s o n i n f o rm ed th e co ur t th at th e jury ha d

reac he d a un an im ou s ve rd ic t. Afte r th e ve rd ic t fo rm was ha nd ed to th e jud ge , th e jud ge rem ark ed :

W el l, I’ve no ti ced a pr ob le m wit h th e ve rd ic t fo rm th at was n’t— it ’s ou r fau lt . W el l, l et ’s go th ro ug h— ok ay

.

(Tri al Tr. 63 9.) The co ur t th en read th e ve rd ic t pe rta in in g to Ang el whe re it fo un d

hi m gu il ty of bo th th e m on ey -la un de rin g co ns pi racy a n d th e dr ug co ns pi racy. The

co ur t p ol le d t he jury as to th e g ui lt y ve rd ic t ag ai ns t An ge l.

On th e ve rd ic t fo rm , th e jury was pr es en te d wit h a two -p art qu es ti on pe rta in in g

to th e m on ey -la un de rin g c on sp ira cy ch arg e ag ai ns t Jav ie r. In “ St ep 1: Verd ic t” th e jury was in st ru ct ed “ [o ]n th e ‘m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy’ of fen se in Co un t 2 of th e

In di ct m en t an d ex pl ai ne d in In st ru ct io n Nos

. 5 an d 8, [to ] pl eas e m ark y ou r ve rd ic t.”

The fo rm , ho wev er, di d no t pr ov id e an y pl ace fo r th e jury to m ark a ve rd ic t of gu il ty

or no t gu il ty. The “ St ep 1: Verd ic t” co nt in ue d wit h in st ru ct io ns th at “ [i]f y ou fin d th e

de fen da nt ‘not gu il ty’ in th is of fen se , do no t an swe r th e qu es ti on in St ep 2.” In “ St ep

2: ‘O bjec ti ve s’ of th e ‘Mon ey Lau nd eri ng Co ns pi racy,’ ” th e jury was in st ru ct ed “ [i]f

y ou fo un d t he de fen da nt ‘gui lt y ’ of th e ‘m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy’ of fen se in

Co un t 2 of th e In di ct m en t, pl eas e in di cat e whi ch on e or m or e m on ey la un de rin g

of fen se s th e co ns pi rat or s ag reed to co m m it as ‘objec ti ve s’ of th e ‘m on ey la un de rin g

co ns pi racy.’ ” The jury was gi ve n two op ti on s in “ St ep 2” an d m ark ed on th e ve rd ic t

fo rm th at th e “ o b

je c t i v e ” of th e of

fen se was “ to co nc eal pr oc eed s of th e dr ug

co ns pi racy.”

The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d t he erro r as fol lo ws:

Now, wit h reg ard to Ja vi er Am ay a, th e ve rd ic t fo rm is in accu rat e be cau se it do es n’t ha ve a pl ace fo r y ou to ch eck gu il ty o r n o t g u il ty i n

st ep 1. Bu t y ou ’v e ch eck ed ob jecti ve s— y ou ch eck ed th e se co nd

-3

-ob

jecti ve , to co nc eal pr oc eed s of th e dr ug co ns pi racy. Bu t wha t I wan t

to kn ow i s wi th reg ard to Jav ie r Am ay a, do y ou fin d hi m gu il ty in st ep 1 o f th e m on ey

lau nd eri ng co ns pi racy?

(Tri al Tr. 64 0.)

The di st ric t co ur t th en pr oc eed ed , wi th ou t fir st co ns ul ti ng th e pa rti es , to po ll

t h e ju r o r s t o co nf

irm th at th ey ha d reac he d a un an im ou s ve rd ic t as to Ja vi er. Ea c h
juro r an swe red affi rm at iv el y

. The co ur t la te r pe rfo rm ed a se co nd po ll in g “ to m ak e

su re ev er yb o dy’ s un an im ou s in te nt was to fin d Ja vi er Am ay a gu il ty of m on ey

la un de rin g.” The co ur t as ke d th e jury, “ Is th at y ou r in te nt ? ” (Tri al Tr. 64 1.) Aga in

, each juro r an swe red affi rm at iv el y

. Neit he r th e go ve rn m en t no r th e de fen se co un se l

ob jecte d to th e pr oc e d u r e a n d n ei th er so ug ht to m ak e a reco rd of th e erro r in th e

ve rd ic t fo rm

.

Bo th Am ay a br ot he rs fil ed po st -tr ia l m ot io ns fo r acq ui tt al or al te rn at iv el y fo r

a ne w t ria l, ra is in g s ev eral is su es . As rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al , Jav ie r arg ue d th at th e

ab se nc e of a pl ace to in di cat e th e ve rd ic t on th e ve rd ic t fo rm in co m bi na ti on wit h th e

po ll in g of th e jury war r a n t ed a gr an t of a m is tri al or a ne w tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t

ag reed

, no ti ng it “ rem ai n[ ed ] co nc ern ed th at th e juro rs m ay ha ve fel t co erce d by th e

erro r in th e ve rd ic t fo rm an d, jus t as im po rta nt ly, by m

y im m ed ia te at te m

pt to co rrec t

th at erro r by po ll in g t he jury to ob ta in th ei r in di vi du al ve rd ic ts in op en co ur t.” The

co ur t g ran te d J av ie r’s m ot io n fo r a ne w t ria l, ho ld in g th at th ere was a pl ai n e rro r in

th e ve rd ic t fo rm , th at th e erro r ha d an im pr op er in flu en ce on th e jury an d th us affe ct ed

Ja vi er’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d th at th e erro r of im pr op er pr oc e d u r e a f

f ect ed th e

fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , and pu bl ic rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs

.

The go ve rn m en t n o w ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n i n g ran ti ng th e m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

-4

-II.

“ Upo n th e de fen da nt ’s m ot io n, th e co ur t m ay va cat e an y jud gm en t an d gr an t

a n e w t r i a l i f th e in te res t of jus ti ce so req ui res .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 33 (a). “Th e

de ci si on to gr an t a Ru le 33 m ot io n is wit hi n th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t,

an d we wil l rev ers e on ly fo r an ab us e of th at di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Dod d, 39 1

F.3 d 93 0, 93 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). W he n co ns id eri ng a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, a di st ric t 2

co ur t m ay “ weig h th e ev id en ce, di sb el ie ve wit ne ss es , an d g r a n t a n e w tri al ev en

whe re th ere is su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce to su st ai n th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Cam po s,

30 6 F.3 d 57 7, 57 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Des pi te th e br oa d di sc ret io n

di st ric t co ur ts en

joy un de r th is ru le

, we ha ve en de av or ed to rem in d co ur ts th at th e

d i s cret io n ha s li m it s an d th e co ur ts “ m us t ex erci se th e Ru le 33 au th or it y ‘spa rin gl y

an d wit h cau ti on .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Lin co ln

, 63 0 F.2 d 13 13

, 13 19 (8 th

Ci r. 1 9 8 0 ) ). “ Co rres po nd in g to th e di st ric t co ur t’s br oa d di sc ret io n is th e li m it ed

sc op e of ou r rev ie w: we wil l rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e m ot io n fo r ne w

tri al on ly if we fin d th at ru li ng to be a cl ear an d m an ife st ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d

St at es v. Mal lo y , 61 4 F.3 d 85 2, 86 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Lin co ln

, 63 0 F.2 d at

13 19 ), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 3 02 3 (2 01 1)

. W e wil l fi nd a di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n if it “ fa i l s t o c o n si de r a fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve be en gi ve n si gn ifi can t
weig ht

, co ns id ers an d gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or

co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in co ns id eri ng an d weig hi ng on ly pr op er fact or s.”

Dod d, 3 91 F.3d at 9 34

.

Bec au se ne it he r pa rty ob

jecte d to ei th er the ve rd ic t form or th e po ll in g of t he
jury, th e di st ric t c o u rt ap pl ie d th e pl ai n erro r st an da rd in de ci di ng to gr an t Ja vi er’s

m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. S e e F e d. R. Cri m

. P. 30 (d ); Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (b ); Uni te d

St at es v. McB rid e, 86 2 F.2 d 13 16

, 13 19 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (h ol di ng th at it is ap pr op ria te

Bo th pa rti es ag ree th at ab us e of di sc ret io n is t h e a p p r o pr ia te st an da rd of 2

rev ie w in th is cas e d es pi te th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f a p la in erro r st an da rd

.

-5

-fo r di st ric t co ur t to ap pl y pl ai n erro r rev ie w to a d e f e n da nt ’s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

whe re is su es were no t ob

jecte d to du rin g tri al ). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d it co m m it te d

two sp eci fic pl ai n erro rs

. Fi rs t, it d et erm in ed th at th e ve rd ic t fo rm fo r Ja vi er was pl ai nl y erro ne ou s be cau se it was ob vi ou s th at th e fo rm sh ou ld ha ve co nt ai ne d a pl ace

fo r th e jury to in di cat e it s ve rd ic t bu t th at pl ace was m is si ng on th e fo rm

. Seco nd

, th e

co ur t de ci de d th at it co m

m it te d erro r whe n it “ su bs ti tu t[e d] po ll in g of th e jury fo r th e

ren de rin g of a ve rd ic t on a pr op e r l y c o mp os ed ve rd ic t fo rm aft er pr iv at e

de li be rat io ns .” The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th es e co m bi ne d erro rs “ po te nt ia ll y ha [d ]

th e sa m e effe ct as po ll in g de ad lo ck ed juro rs ” whi ch th e co ur t fo un d m ay ha ve ha d a

co erci ve effe ct on th e jury, th at be in g th e jury m ay ha ve ren de red a pr em at ur e ve rd ic t

wit ho ut th e o rd in ary sa feg ua rd s o f pr iv at e de li be rat io ns wit h a pr op er verd ic t form

. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t hel d th at th e erro rs were su ch a de pa rtu re from th e no rm al

pr oc ed ur e fo r ret ur ni ng an d reco rd in g a ju r y v erd ic t th at it se rio us ly affe ct ed th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Uni te d St at es v.

Po it ra, 64 8 F.3 d 88 4, 88 7 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ To ob ta in rel ie f un de r a pl ai n- erro r

st an da rd of rev ie w, th e pa rty se ek in g rel ie f m us t sh ow th a t t h ere was an erro r, th e

erro r is cle ar or obv io us un de r cu rren t law, th e err or affe ct ed th e p art y ’s su bs ta nt ia l
rig ht s, an d th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut a t i o n of
jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .”).

W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th e

ve rd ic t fo rm erro r an d th e su bs ti tu ti on of a po ll in g pr oc ed ur e f o r a r e t u r n of th e

ve rd ic t co ns ti tu te d pl ai n erro r. F i r s t

, al th ou gh Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e

31 (a) pr ov id es on ly th at “ [t]he jury m us t retu rn it s ve rd ic t to a jud ge in op en co ur t,”

th e cl ear in te nt of th e di st ric t co ur t in th is cas e fo r th e jury to in di cat e th e ve rd ic t on

a pr op erl y co m

pl et ed ve rd ic t fo rm is ob vi ou s. By co m pa ris on , fo r bo th co un ts ag ai ns t

Ja vi er’s br ot he r Ang el th e jury was pr ov id ed a pl ace to in di cat e it s ve rd ic t. Nex t, th e 3

The di ss en t em

ph as iz es th at “ di st ric t co ur ts ha ve wid e la ti tu de in co ns tru ct in g 3

ei th er writ te n or or al jury in st ru ct io ns , in cl ud in g writ te n or or al ve rd ic t in fo rm at io n.”

-6

-Ru le s di ct at e th at th e co ur t m ay po ll th e jury “ [a]fter a ve rd ic t i s re tu rn ed .” Fed

. R.

Cri m

. P. 31 (d ). The re is si m pl y no pr oc ed ur e in pl ace fo r th e jury to ret ur n a ve rd ic t

th ro ug h po ll in g by th e co ur t. “ The pu rp os e of a jury po l l ‘i s t o g i v e each juro r an

op po rtu ni ty, be fo re th e ve rd ic t is reco rd ed

, to de cl are in op en co ur t hi s as se nt to th e

ve rd ic t wh ic h t he for em an ha s ret ur ne d,’ t o en su re t ha t ‘a un an im ou s v erd ic t h as in

fact be en reac he d an d th at no juro r ha s be en co erce d or in du ced to ag ree to a ve rd ic t

to whi ch he ha s no t fu ll y as se nt ed .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Ch erry, 72 0 F.3 d 16 1, 16 7 (4 th

Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cart er, 77 2 F.2 d 66

, 68 (4 th Ci r. 19 85 )). Thu s,

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fi nd in g o f pl ai n e rro r was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 4

See in fra at 15

. Ass um in g th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d ha ve m ad e a co ns ci ou s de ci si on to

pe rm it th e ret ur n of ve rd ic t by or al pr on ou nc em en t, th at is no t th e pr oc ed ur e th e di st ric t co ur t el ect ed to ut i l i z e i n th is cas e. Rat he r, th e di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns de m on st rat ed a cl ear in te nt fo r th e jury to ret ur n it s ve rd ic t on a writ te n ve rd ic t fo rm

. The cri ti cal co m

po ne nt of th e fo rm

—a pl ace fo r th e jury to in di cat e th e ve rd ic t— was

m is si ng

. W e reject th e di ss en t’s ch arac te riz at io n of th is si gn ifi can t erro r as “ a m in or

am bi gu it y ” or a “ sl ig ht im

pe rfec ti on .” See in fra at 10

, 16

. The di ss en t can no t di sp ut e th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d th e di sc ret io n to req ui re th e jury to ret ur n th e ve rd ic t
th ro ug h a co m

pl et ed ve rd ic t fo rm , an d th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y in st ru ct ed th e jury in

th is cas e to do so , bu t th en pr ov id ed a fat al ly fla wed fo rm to th e jury. Co m po un di ng th is si gn ifi can t erro r, th e di st ric t co ur t, wit ho ut ta ki ng ti m e to pr op erl y co ns id er ho w be st to pr oc eed whe n th e in te nd ed pr oc ed ur e was di sr up te d, po ll ed th e jury wit h th e

pr es um pt iv e qu es ti on “ do y ou fin d hi m gu il ty in s t e p 1 o f th e m on ey la un de rin g

co ns pi racy?” (Tria l Tr. 6 40 .)

The di ss en t ch arac te riz es ou r de ci si on in Cu nd iff v. Un it ed Sta te s, 50 1 F.2 d 4

18 8 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 74 ) (p er cu ria m ), as “ a su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar co nt ex t” to th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d he re. See in fra at 17

. Cu nd iff is eas il y di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th is cas e. The de fen da nt in Cu nd iff r e c o g ni zed th e po te nt ia l erro r be fo re th e jury

ret ur ne d th e ve rd ic t, a n d t h e di st ric t co ur t cal le d th e jury ba ck in to th e co ur tro om be fo re co m

pl et io n of de li be r a t i o n s t o ex pl ai n th e pr op er us e of th e fo rm s an d to
cl ari fy th at th e jury w a s no t req ui red to fin d th e de fen da nt gu il ty of th e le ss eri nc lu de d of

fen se

. Cu nd iff

, 50 1 F.2 d at 19 0. The di ss en t al so at te mp t s t o d r a w a

co m pa ris on to th e us e of a jury po ll in th e two cas es , cl ai m in g th at th e di st ric t cou rt
in Cu nd iff “ al so co nd uc te d a jury p ol l

. . . a s was al so do ne in th is ca s e.” See in fra

-7

-Nor do we fin d th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n it de te rm in ed th at th e

erro rs affe ct ed Ja vi er’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. See Uni te d St at es v. Olan o, 50 7 U.S. 72 5,

73 4 (1 99 3) (h ol di ng th at in m os t cas es , fo r an erro r to affe ct a de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l
rig ht s, th e erro r m

us t be pr ejud ic ia l). In th e ci rcu m st an c e o f p o l l i ng a de ad lo ck ed
jury, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d:

Its effe ct up on a di vi de d jury wil l of te n de pe nd up on ci rc um st an ces whi ch can no t p r o p erl y be kn own to th e tri al jud ge or to th e ap pe ll at e

co ur ts an d m ay va ry wid el y in di ffer en t s i t u a t i o n s, bu t in ge ne ral it s

t e n d en cy is co erci ve

. It can rare ly be res or te d to wit ho ut br in g i n g t o b e a r in so m e de gr ee, se rio us al th ou gh no t m eas ur ab le

, an im pr op e r in flu en ce up on th e jury, fro m who se de li be rat io ns ev ery co ns id erat io n

ot he r th an th at of th e ev id en ce an d th e la w as ex po un de d i n a pr op er ch arg e, sh ou ld be ex cl ud ed

. Su ch a pr act ic e, whi ch is ne ve r us efu l an d
is ge ne ral ly harm fu l, i s n ot to be san ct io ne d.

Bras fie ld v. Uni te d St at es , 27 2 U.S. 44 8, 45 0 (1 92 6)

. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly in di cat ed

th at co nc er n s a b o u t erro rs in po ll in g de pe nd on “ whe th er it is li ke ly th at th e

pr oc eed in gs co n d u c t e d by th e tri al co ur t co erce d th e juro r in arri vi ng at hi s fin al

ve rd ic t.” Am os v. Uni te d St at es , 49 6 F.2 d 12 69

, 12 72 (8 th Ci r. 19 74 ). As Bras fie ld

cau ti on s, th e co nd uc ti ng of a po ll of th e jury be f o r e a ve rd ic t ha s be en pr op erl y

ret ur ne d “ can rare ly be res or te d t o with ou t bri ng in g to be ar i n s om e d eg ree, s eri ou s

al th ou gh no t m eas ur ab le

, an im pr op er in flu en ce up on th e jury.” Bras fie ld

, 27 2 U.S.

at 45 0. The di st ric t co ur t ex pr es se d co n c e r n s th at whe n it su bs ti tu te d th e po ll in g

pr oc ed ur e fo r a ret ur n of ve rd ic t th ro ug h a pr op erl y co m pl et ed ve rd ic t fo rm it fel l

wit hi n Bras fie ld ’s warn in g th at th e act io n “ can rare ly be res or te d to wit ho ut br in gi ng

to be ar i n s om e d eg ree . . . an im pr op er i nf

lu en ce u po n t he jury. ” Id

.

at 17

. Su ch cl ai m by th e di ss en t fail s to dr aw an im po rta nt di st in ct io n. The po ll in g in th is cas e was do ne in su bs ti tu ti on fo r th e ret ur n of th e ve rd ic t whe reas th e po ll in g in Cu nd iff was co nd uc te d “ [a]fter th e jury ret ur ne d it s ve rd ic t.” Cu nd iff

, 50 1 F.2 d at
19 0.

-8

-Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at th e erro r in th e ve rd ic t fo rm an d th e po ll in g

pr oc ed ur e was a si gn ifi can t de pa rtu re fro m reg ul ar pr oc ed ur e “ as to se rio us ly affe ct

th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l p r o c e e di ng s.” In de ed th is

pr oc ed ur e is so irr eg ul ar th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d “ fin d no op in io ns of th e fed eral

Ci rcu it Co ur ts of App ea l s o r t he Su pr em e Co ur t sq ua rel y on po in t wit h th e

ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d he re.” W e ha ve al so be en un ab le to fin d cas es whi ch are “ on

po in t” or m or e an al og ou s to th os e co ns id ered by th e di st ric t co ur t or pr es en te d by th e

pa rti es in th ei r br ie fs

. Thi s su gg es ts th at th e pr oc ed ur e em pl oyed by th e di st ric t co ur t

to ret ur n an d reco rd th e v e r d ic t in th is cas e was a si gn ifi can t de pa rtu re fro m

tra di ti on al pr act ic e. W hi le no th in g in th e cri m in al ru le s sp eci fy th e m an ne r in whi ch

th e ve rd ic t m

us t be ret ur ne d, th e f

a c t s of th is cas e m ak e it ob vi ou s th at th e co ur t

in te nd ed th e jury to in di cat e it s ve rd ic t on th e ve rd ic t fo rm

. In li gh t of th is

, we can no t

sa y t h e d is tri ct co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th e pr oc ed ur e se rio us ly affe ct ed th e

“ fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of ju d i c i a l pr oc eed in gs ” was an ab us e of

di sc ret io n.

W e no te th at th e go ve rn m en t’s br ie f pr es en ts s tro ng arg um en ts

, do es a

co m m en da bl e job of at te m

pt in g to di st in gu is h ad ve rs e cas es , an d ci te s to cas es th at

, whi le no t b in di ng or s qu arel y on po in t, gen eral ly sup po rt i ts arg um en t. In de ed , th e

di ss en t fin ds th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t to be pe rs ua si ve , an d we reco gn iz e th at th e

di ss en t’s op in io n m ak es a cas e fo r why th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d ha ve be en affi rm ed

ha d th e co ur t den ie d th e m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. H owe ve r, th e di st ric t cou rt gra nt ed

th e m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, an d in so do i n g, al so pr es en te d pe rs ua si ve an d

in tro sp ect iv e reas on in g fo r why it s m is st ep s jus ti fie d th e gr an t of a ne w tri al

. Und er

th e co nf in es of th e ab us e of di sc ret io n rev ie w, “ we de fer to th e ru li ng of a res pe ct ed

, ab le tri al jud ge ” be cau se “ th e tri al jud ge , no t an ap pe ll at e co ur t read in g a co ld reco rd

,

can be st weig h t h e e r ro rs ag ai ns t th e reco rd as a who le to de te rm in e whe th er th os e

erro rs in th e co nd uc t o f th e tr ia l ju st ify a new t ria l.” M cBri de , 86 2 F .2d at 1 32 0.

-9

-III.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

A f ed eral tri al co ur t m ay no t or de r th e "d o o v e r " o f a su bs ta nt ia ll y erro r-fre e

cri m in al tri al si m

pl y be cau se th e co ur t wan ts to try to do a sl ig ht ly be tt er job th e ne xt

ti m e aro un d or be cau se th e co ur t be li ev es th e jury m ay pr od uc e a m or e acce pt ab le

res ul t. As I ex pl ai n in m or e de ta il be lo w, a m in or am bi gu it y in on e se nt en ce of one
jury in st ru ct io n do es no t su pp or t a ne w tri al th at wil l un reas on ab ly was te ta x do ll ars ,

un ne ces sa ril y ex ha us t pr os ecu to ria l res ou rces of th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa an d

th ou gh tl es sl y bu rd en un de r-co m pe ns at ed m e mb ers of th e Dis tri ct 's jury p oo l. Thi s

pa rti cu la r jury, be in g a typic al ly pe rcep ti ve , i n t e l l e c tu al ly as tu te an d se lf- rel ia nt

Am eri can fed eral co ur t de li be rat iv e bo d y, fau lt le ss ly wor ke d it s way th ro ug h a

m arg in al in st ru ct io na l im pe rfec ti on to reac h a well -r e as on ed an d ev id en ti ari ly

su pp or te d ve rd ic t. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t's fau lt y di sc ern m en t an d erra nt ap pl ic at io n

of pl ai n tri al erro r, co up le d wit h it s cap ric io us ov ert ur ni ng of th e jury's wor k pr od uc t,

co ns ti tu te d a fu nd am en ta l abu se of jud ic ia l di sc ret io n. Fro m th is un to ward res ul t, I

di ss en t.

Not wit hs ta nd in g th e di st ric t co ur t's se ve nt y -two pa ge ex pl ic at io n on m ul ti pl e

as pe ct s of th e Am ay a br ot he rs po st -tr ia l m ot io ns , th e fact ua l and le ga l iss ue s in th is

ap pe al are rel at i v e l y si m pl e. The di sp ut e bo tt om s on whe th er Ja vi er Am ay a was

gu il ty of be i n g p art of an 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy as

affi rm at iv el y an d un an im ou sl y de te rm in ed by a jury of hi s pe ers

. And

, th ere can be

no do ub t t ha t J av ie r was in de ed gu il ty as ch arg ed

.

-1 0-To be gi n, I ad op t th e co ur t m ajor it y 's fact ua l reci ta ti on as se t fo rth in th e fir st

th ree pa rag rap hs of Sect io n I. Fo r p u r p os es of th is di ss en t, I fu rth er em ph as iz e th e

fo ll owi ng fact s.

At th e be gi nn in g of th e tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t or al ly in st ru ct ed th e jury on juro r

res po ns ib il it ie s, tri al pr oc ed ur e, the subs ta

nti ve la w ap pl ic ab le to th e cri m in al ch arg es

ag ai ns t each de fen da nt an d th e req ui rem en ts fo r fo rm al iz in g an d ret ur ni ng a ve rd ic t.

Each juro r was al so pr ov id ed a writ te n co py of th es e or al in st ru ct io ns fo r us e du rin g

th e tri al

. Bo th th e writ te n an d or al i n s t ru ct io ns co nt ai ne d ve rd ic t fo rm ul at io n

l a n g u a g e whi ch in cl ud ed wor ds an d m ark s to be us ed by th e jury in ret ur ni ng a

ve rd ic t sp eci fic t o e a ch de fen da nt

. The di st ric t co ur t read fro m th e writ te n

in st ru ct io ns pe rta in in g to th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy ch arg es ag ai n st th e

Am ay as as f

ol lo ws:

The n Co un t 2, m on ey la un de rin g, st ep 1 is th e ve rd ic t. On th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy of fen se in Co un t 2 of th e i n d i ct m en t an d

ex pl ai ne d in in st ru ct io ns nu m be rs 5 an d 8, pl eas e m ark y ou r ve rd ic t. If

y ou fin d th e de fen da nt [An ge l Am ay a] no t gu il ty of th is of fen se , do no t

an swe r th e qu es ti on in st ep 2. In st ead go on to co ns id er y ou r ve rd ic t on th e c h a r g e ag ai ns t Defen da nt Ja vi er Am ay a. The re's a pl ace fo r no t

gu il ty and gu il ty.

And th en st ep 2, ob

jecti ve s of th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy, if y ou f o u nd th e de fen da nt [An ge l Am ay a] gu il ty of th e m on ey la un de ri n g

co ns pi racy of

fen se in Co un t 2 of th e in di ct m en t, ple as e in di cat e whi ch

on e or m or e m on e y l a u nd eri ng of fen se s th e co ns pi rat or s ag reed to

co m m it as ob jecti ve s of th e m on ey

lau nd eri ng co ns pi racy. Object iv es of th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy were ex pl ai ne d in in st ru ct io n

nu m be r 8. To pr om ot e th e carr y in g on of th e d r u g co ns pi racy, to

co nc eal pr oc eed s of dr ug co ns pi racy, or to av oi d tra ns act io n rep or ti ng

req ui rem en ts un de r fed eral law.

. . .

-1 1-[T]hen Ro m an nu m eral two on pa ge fo ur of th e ve rd ic t fo r m in vo lv es

Ja vi er A maya

. As to Defen da nt Ja vi er Am ay a, we, th e jury,

un an im ou sl y fin d as f

o l l o w s

. Not ic e it 's on ly Co un t 2 be cau se Ja vi er Am ay a's on ly charg ed in th e m on ey lau nd eri ng co un t. St ep 1, v erd ic t,

an d th en I'm no t go in g to rep eat it be cau se it 's t h e id en ti cal m on ey la un de rin g wi th reg ard to th e o th er – th e fi rs t d efen da nt

.

Fo ll owi ng is a co py of th e ve rd ic t reac he d fo r each de fen da nt as co m pl et ed by th e jury.

-1 2--1 3-Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 33 (a) p r o vi de s th at

, up on de fen da nt 's

m ot io n, a di st ric t co ur t "m ay va cat e an y jud gm en t an d gr an t a ne w tri al if th e in te res t

of jus ti ce so req ui res ." "Th e Ru le do es no t de fin e 'in te res ts of jus ti ce' an d th e co ur ts

ha ve ha d li tt le su cces s in tryin g to ge ne ral iz e it s m ean in g." Uni te d St at es v. Kuz ni ar,

88 1 F.2 d 46 6, 47 0 (7 th Ci r. 19 89 ); se e al so Mo ral es -Fer na nd ez v. I.N.S., 41 8 F.3 d

11 16

, 11 19 -2 0 ( 1 0t h Ci r. 20 05 ) ("'i nt eres ts of jus ti ce' is a rat he r el us iv e co nc ep t" );

Uni te d St at es v. Ro be rts

, 97 8 F.2 d 17

, 21 (1 st Ci r. 19 92 ) ("J us ti ce is a n id eal th at

de fie s pr eci se de fin it io n." ). Fo r th is reas on , in or de r to un de rs ta nd wha t "i nt eres t of
jus ti ce" m ean s, th e ph ras e m us t be pl aced in sp ec ifi c co nt ex t. Ru le 33 al lo ws a

de fen da nt to fil e a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al "b as ed on ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce" (Ru le

33 (b )(1 )) or "g ro un de d o n a ny reaso n o th er t ha n n ewly dis co ve red ev id en ce" (Ru le

33 (b )(2 ). Thi s l at te r ba si s i s re ferr ed to as " ot he r gr ou nd s."

One of t he m os t co m

m on "o th er g ro un ds " b as is fo r a ne w t ria l m ot io n is th at

th e ve rd ic t is ag ai ns t t h e w e i g h t of th e ev id en ce. 3 Ch arl es Alan W rig ht

, et al

., Fed eral Prac ti ce & Pro ced ur e Cri m in al § 58 2 (4 th ed .). W he n th is is th e ba si s fo r th e

m ot io n, "[a ] di st ric t co ur t m ay gr an t a ne w tri al un de r Ru le 33 on ly if th e ev id en ce weig hs so he av il y ag ai ns t th e ve rd ic t th at a m is carr ia ge o f jus ti ce m ay ha ve

oc cu rred ." Uni te d St at es v. McC le ll on , 57 8 F.3 d 84 6, 85 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. Here, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t gr an t th e Ru le 33 m ot io n fo r

ev id en ti ary reas on s bu t rat he r gr ou nd ed th e ru li ng in a pe rcep ti on th at le ga l erro r ha d

oc cu rred

. In de ed

, an d ev en th ou gh th e co ur t m ajor it y fai ls to m en ti on th is im po rta nt

po in t, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y an d sp eci fic al ly de te rm in ed in it s ne w tri al an al y si s

th at Ja vi er Am ay a is "n ot en ti tl ed to

. . . [a] ne w tri al [] on th e m on ey la un de rin g

co ns pi racy on th e b as is of i ns uf fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce."

Rat he r, pr oc ee d i n g u n d er th e "o th er gr ou nd s" ru br ic of Ru le 33 (b )(2 ), th e

di st ric t co ur t em

pl oyed a pl ai n erro r te st as fo rmu l a t e d in Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al

Pro ced ur e 5 2( b)

. Thi s Rul e 52 (b ) an al y si s in vo lv ed , of c ou rs e, th e ad eq ua cy of t he

-1 4-jury in st ru ct io ns , m or e sp eci fic al ly th e in st ru ct ion s de al in g wit h th e ret ur n of a ve rd ic t

ag ai ns t J av ie r.

Alt ho ug h m an y tri al jud ge s fin d it go od pr act ic e to pr ov id e juri es wit h writ te n

co pi es of in st ru ct io ns on th e la w ap pl ic ab le in a pa rti cu la r c a s e , in cl ud in g ve rd ic t

fo rm ul at io n in st ru ct io ns , ot he rs do no t fo ll ow th at pr act ic e, rel y in g up on th e of fic ia l

reco rd of th e t r i a l to pr ov id e a de sc rip ti on of su ch in fo rm at io n whe n ne ed ed

. Bo th

ap pr oa ch es are acce pt ab le b ecau se writ te n in st ru ct io ns in cl ud in g ve rd ic t-r el at ed

in st ru ct io ns are no t re qu ire d i n fe de ral tri al co ur ts . Uni te d S ta te s v . Eberh ard t, 65 7

F.2 d 22 1, 22 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ); Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 46 6 F.2 d 53 7, 53 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 72 ) (p er cu ria m ).

In an y ev en t, di st ric t co ur ts ha ve wid e la ti tu de in co ns tru ct in g ei th er writ te n or

or al jury in st ru ct io ns , in cl ud in g writ te n or or al ve rd ic t in fo rm at io n. See Uni te d St at es

v

. W hi te Cal f, 63 4 F.3 d 45 3, 45 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rev ie win g fo rm ul at io n o f ju r y

in st ru ct io ns fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n) ; Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti so n, 41 9 F.3 d 74 9, 75 3
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (rev ie win g ve rd ic t fo rm fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n)

. Ju ry in st ru ct io ns

of ei th er ki nd are su ffi ci en t "i f th ey fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury." Uni te d St at es v. Esp in oz a, 68 4 F.3 d 76 6, 78 3 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

,
cert . den ie d, 1 33 S. Ct. 5 89 (20 12 ). And , we ha ve ne ve r req ui red jury in st ru ct io ns , in cl ud in g ver di ct fo rm s co nt ai ne d th erei n, to be fau lt le ss or to fit th e in di vi du al iz ed

or id io syncra ti c p refe ren ces of a pa rti cu la r jud ge

.

In bo th ci vi l an d cri m in al cas es , th is co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed th at an y al le ge d erro r

in a ve rd ic t in st ru ct io n m us t be v i ewed wit hi n th e br oa de r co nt ex t of th e jury

in st ru ct i o n s a s a who le

. Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 33 0 F.3 d 10 73 , 1 07 7- 78 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ) ("t he jury in st ru ct io ns an d ve rd ic t fo rm vi ewed as a who le di d no t al lo w th e jury to co nv ic t [t he de fen da nt ] of a di ffer en t of

fen se th an

. . . c ha rg ed "); Gan de r v.

FMC Co rp ., 8 92 F.2 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 37 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) ("We m us t

. . . co ns id er whe th er

th e fo rm , ta ke n to ge th er wit h t h e in st ru ct io ns to th e jury, is so m is le ad in g or

-1 5-co nf

us in g th at th e jury ve rd ic t can no t st an d. In de te rm in in g whe th er th e ve rd ic t fo rm

is co nf us in g, we m

us t co ns id er it in li gh t of th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n." ) And

, wit hi n th is

ex pa ns iv e co nt ex t, whe re th e jury in st ru ct io ns as a who le pr op erl y ch arg e t h e ju ry ,

us e of an in st ru ct io n th at is m arg in al ly im pe rfec t or la ck s so m e cl ari ty do es no t ren de r

th e in st ru ct io n il lu so ry , co erci ve or co ns ti tu te rev ers ib le erro r. Uni te d St at es v Hall

, 32 5 F.3 d 98 0, 98 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Cri m m v. Mo

. Pac. R.R., 75 0 F.2 d 70 3, 71 1
(8 th Ci r.19 84 )). Thi s is es pe ci al ly t ru e, whe re, as he re, t he m os t t ha t ca n b e sa id in

su pp or t of th e tri al jud ge 's Ru le 33 ne w tri al or de r is th at th ere m ig h t c o n cei va bl y

ha ve be en a sm al l m eas ur e of am bi gu it y in on e ph ras e pe rta in in g to on e in st ru ct io n,

an d e ve n m or e, as he re, w he n th e pu rp or te d am bi gu it y pr es en ts no hi nt wha te ve r of

ha vi ng co nf

us ed th e jury.

As earl ie r no te d, th e di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed th e jury th at th e m on ey la un de rin g

ve rd ic t in st r u c ti on s in it ia ll y gi ve n fo r Ang el Am ay a an d th os e gi ve n im m ed ia te ly

th erea fte r fo r Ja vi er Am ay a were id en ti cal

. And th is was tru e, ex cep t th at th e wor ds

"n ot gu il ty" a nd "g ui lt y " wit h a li ne be hi nd each wor d or wor ds , a lt ho ug h in cl ud ed

in Ang el 's in st ru ct io n, were om it te d fro m St ep 1 of Ja vi er's in st ru ct io n. The re can be

li tt le do ub t, ho wev er, th at th e jury fu ll y un de rs to o d i t c o u l d an d sh ou ld fin d Ja vi er

ei th er "n ot gu il ty" or "g ui lt y ." Fi rs t, th e jury in st ru ct io ns as a who le in fo rm ed th e jury

o f t h e ch arg e an d ex pl ai ne d th at each ch arg e ag ai ns t each de fen da nt ne ed ed to b e

co ns id ered se pa rat el y , th at each ch arg e req ui red a un an i m ou s ve rd ic t, an d th at th e jury ha d th e op ti on to fin d Ja vi er ei th er "n ot gu il ty" or "g ui lt y ." Seco nd

, on Ja vi er's

ve rd ic t fo rm , l ik e th at of Ang el , t he jury was in st ru ct ed t h a t it sh ou ld on ly m ov e to

"St ep 2" if it fo un d th at Ja vi er was gu il ty un de r "St ep 1." The jury m ov ed to "St ep 2,"

in bo th in st an ces , s p e c i f i c a ll y fin di ng , as rel ev an t he re, th at Ja vi er co m m it te d an

ob jecti ve in th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy, na m el y co n c e al in g pr oc eed s of th e

dr ug co ns pi racy. Fi na ll y , aft er the di st ric t cou rt m en ti on ed th e ve rd ic t form is su e it

pe rcei ve d to th e jury, it th en co nd uc te d a po ll in whi ch each in di vi du al juro r in op en

co ur t co nf

irmed th e earl ie r an n o u n c e d u na ni m ou s gu il ty ve rd ic t. Thu s, th ere is no

in di cat io n wha te ve r in th e tri al reco rd

, th at th e sl ig ht im pe rfec ti on in th e ve rd ic t fo rm

-1 6-im ag in ed by th e tri al co ur t– ari si ng fro m th e wor ds in St ep 1 sa y in g "p le as e m ark y ou r

ve rd ic t" whe n th ere was no sp eci fic pl ace to m ak e su ch a m ark ex cep t in th e

"Ob jecti ve s" fin di ng s po rti on –c o n s t i t u te d erro r of an y hu e le t al on e pl ai n erro r.

In de ed

, si nc e th e reco rd (in cl ud in g ev id en ce of y et a se co nd po l l o f th e juro rs )

pr ov id es am

pl e as su ran ce t h a t t h e jury in te nd ed to fin d Ja vi er gu il ty, th e ve rd ic t

in st ru ct io n ha d no ad ve rs e affe c t u p o n h i s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. And

, wit h th es e

as su ran ces of a pr op er gu il ty ve rd ic t, no th in g su gg es ts th at th e ve rd ic t fo rm 's al le ge d

m in or im pe rfec ti on co ul d ha ve affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of

Ja vi er's tri al

. Acco rd in gl y , th es e as su ran c e s v i e wed in th e al te rn at iv e co nt ex t of a

tri al co ur t's su pe rv is or y di sc ret io n, cl earl y e s t a b li sh who ll y ab us iv e co nd uc t on th e

pa rt of th e tri al jud ge in it s ov ert ur ni ng of th e jury's fu ll y su pp or ta bl e gu il ty ve rd ic t.

In Cu nd i f f v

. U n i te d St at es , t hi s co ur t de te rm in ed th at no erro r oc cu rred in a

su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar co nt ex t. 50 1 F.2 d 18 8 (8 t h C ir. 19 74 ) (p er cu ria m ). Cu nd iff

hi gh li gh te d th at th e di st ric t co ur t ve rb al ly ex pl ai ne d th e ve rd ic t in st ru ct io ns , as was

do ne in th is cas e, an d al so co nd uc te d a jury po ll whe re " e a c h juro r ag reed th at th e

ve rd ic t was hi s s ep arat e an d i nd iv id ua l v erd ic t," id . at 1 90 , as was al so do ne in th is

cas e.

Fu rth er, an d pe rh ap s m or e im po rta nt ly, th e tri al co ur t's supp ose d co nc ern ab ou t

th e in st ru ct io na l am

bi gu it y is m

uc h ad ie u ab ou t no th in g. Eve ry req ui red face t of th e

ret ur n of a ve rd ic t in a fed eral cri m in al tri al was fu ll y c o mp l i e d wit h in th is cas e.

Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro ced ur e 3 1 s ta te s, i n re le va nt pa rt, a s fo ll ows :

(a) Ret ur n. The ju r y m

us t ret ur n it s ve rd ic t to a jud ge in op en co ur t.
The ve rd ic t m

us t b e u na ni m ou s.

. . .

(d ) Ju ry Po ll

. Afte r a ve r d i c t is ret ur ne d bu t be fo re th e jury is
di sc ha rg ed

, th e co ur t m

us t on a pa rty's req ue st

, or m ay on it s own , po ll

-1 7-th e juro rs in di vi du al ly. If th e po ll rev eal s a la ck of un an im it y , th e co ur t

m ay di rect th e jury to de li be rat e fu rth er o r may de cl are a m is tri al an d
di sc ha rg e th e jury.

So

, wit ho ut reg ar d t o th e so -cal le d in st ru ct io na l om is si on an d res ul ti ng am bi gu it y , Ru le 31 's req ui rem en ts were fo ll owe d to th e le t t e r in th is cas e. The tri al reco rd

rep or ts th at th e fo ll owi ng oc cu rred in op en co ur t:

(The jury en te red th e co ur tro om .)

THE COURT: Tha nk y ou . Plea se be sea te d.
And wh o i s t h e fo rep ers on ? Oka y

. Mr. Kna ack

, di d I pr on ou nc e th at

co rrec tl y ? Has t he jury reac he d a un an im ou s v erd ic t?

JUR OR KNAACK: Yes , si r.

THE COURT: Oka y

. W ou ld y ou ha nd th e ve rd ic t fo rm to Mel is sa , an d

th en sh e'l l ha nd it to m e, an d I'l l rev ie w it

. And th en on ce I'v e rev ie wed

it , I'll an no un ce t he ve rd ic t.

Sh e n ev er p eek s. I jus t ca n't be li ev e th at

.

W el l, I've no ti ced a pr ob le m wit h th e ve rd ic t fo rm th at was n't – it 's ou r fau lt . W el l, l et 's g o t hr ou gh – o ka y

.

W it h reg ard to Defen da nt Ang el Am ay a, y ou fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty
of th e d r ug co ns pi racy, ch eck ed m et ha m ph et am in e, co cai ne , an d

m ari juan a, fo un d on th e m et ha m ph et am in e 50 0 gr am s or m or e, fo un d on th e co cai ne 50 0 gr a ms or m or e, an d on th e m on ey la un de rin g co un t
fo un d t he de fen da nt gu il ty and th en ch eck ed all th ree o bjec ti ve s.

So

, wit h reg ard to Defen da nt Ang el Am ay a, is th at y ou r tru e an d co rrec t

ve rd ic t? And we'll jus t st art in th e ba ck ro w, an d we'll go do wn th e ro w.

JUR OR SCHROEDER: Yes.

-1 8-JUR OR LIEN: Yes

.

JUR OR KNAACK: Yes , si r.

JUR OR TONNER-COLVERT: Yes

.

JUR OR MULDER: Ye s, s ir.

JUR OR BARGE: Yes.

JUR OR MILLER: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR PLATHE: Yes , si r.

JUR OR HOEKSTRA: Yes , si r.

JUR OR SUHR: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR MOLGAARD: Yes , si r.

JUR OR GAGNON: Yes, s ir.

. . .

THE COURT: Now, wit h reg ard to Ja vi er Am ay a, th e ve rd i c t f o rm is

in accu rat e be cau se it do es n't ha ve a pl ace fo r y ou to ch eck gu il ty or no t

gu il ty in st ep l. Bu t y ou 've ch eck ed ob jecti ve s – y ou ch eck ed th e se co nd
ob jecti ve , to co nc eal pr oc eed s of th e dr ug co ns pi racy. Bu t wha t I wan t

to kn ow is wi th reg ard to Jav ie r Am ay a, do y ou fin d h im gu il ty in ste p 1 o f th e m on ey

lau nd eri ng co ns pi racy?

JUR OR KNAACK: Yes , si r.

THE COURT: And we'll jus t s ta rt i n t he ba ck row a ga in

.

JUR OR SCHROEDER: Yes, s ir.

-1 9-JUR OR LIEN: Yes , You r Hon or

.

JUR OR KNAACK: Yes

.

JUR OR TONNER-COLVERT: Yes

.

JUR OR MULDER: Ye s, s ir.

JUR OR BARGE: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR MILLER: Yes, s ir.

THE COURT: Fro nt row?

JUR OR HOEKSTRA: Yes , si r.

JUR OR SUHR: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR MOLGAARD: Yes , si r.

JUR OR GAGNON: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR PLATHE: Yes , si r.

THE COURT: And th en wit h reg ard to st ep 2, th e ob jecti ve s, y ou ha ve

cro ss ed ou t th e th i r d o b

je c ti ve whi ch I ha d as ke d y ou to do be fo re cl os in g arg um en ts

. And th en th ere's an X nex t t o t he sec on d ob jecti ve whi ch is to co nc e a l t he pr oc eed s of th e dr ug co ns pi racy. The re's a ch eck m ark ne xt to X.

So I jus t wan t to m ak e su re th at ev erybod y 's un a n i mo u s in te nt was to
fin d Ja vi e r A m ay a gu il ty of m on ey la un de rin g be cau se th at 's th e on ly
ch arg e he 's ch arg ed wit h an d to fin d th at it was to co nc eal th e pr oc eed s of th e dr ug co ns pi racy. And jus t to be su re, be cau se it 's ou r sc rew-u p on th e v erd ic t fo rm , we'll st art in th e b ack row a ga in . Is t ha t your in te nt ?

JUR OR SCHROEDER: Yes.

-2 0-JUR OR LIEN: Yes

.

JUR OR KNAACK: Yes , si r.

JUR OR TONNER-COLVERT: Yes

.

JUR OR MULDER: Ye s, s ir.

JUR OR BARGE: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR MILLER: Yes.

THE COURT: Fro nt row?

JUR OR HOEKSTRA: Yes , si r.

JUR OR SUHR: Yes, s ir.

JUR OR MOLGAARD: Yes , si r.

JUR OR GAGNON: Yes.

JUR OR PLATHE: Yes , si r.

. . .

(The jury ex it ed th e co ur tro om .)

Thu s, it is ab un da nt ly cl ear t h a t no twi th st an di ng th e m in or am bi gu it y in th e jury

in st ru ct io n ari si ng fro m th e wor ds "p le as e m ark y ou r ve rd ic t" wit h no ob vi ou s pl ace

to m ak e a m ark

–b ut te ll in g th e jury to ne xt m ov e on to th e "o bjec ti ve s" in qu iry un le ss

it fo un d Ja vi er no t gu il ty–al l req ui rem en ts of Ru le 31 were m or e th an ad eq ua te ly m et

.

Acco rd in gl y , ev en if on e co ul d gi ve an y m eas ur e of cred en ce to th e di st ric t

co ur t's pu rp or te d co nc ern s ab ou t po ll in g th e juro rs in op en co ur t in st ead of ret ur ni ng

-2 1-th em fo r m or e de li be rat io n, su ch co nc ern s were m or e th an be li ed by th e jury po ll in g

th at oc cu rred no t jus t on ce, bu t twi ce. In de ed

, im pu gn in g th e cred ib il it y of th e juro r's

po ll in g res po ns es on th is reco rd co ns ti tu te s un su pp or ta bl e di m in ut io n of th e jury

ro om in de pe nd en ce, in te ll ect ua l acu it y a n d et hi cal in te gr it y of th is jury. Und er th e

ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d in th is cas e, Uni te d St at es v. Howar d, es ta bl is he s th e

ab so lu te pr op rie ty of po ll in g th e jur y a s a pr op er m ech an is m to cl ear up an y

am bi gu it y in th e fin al it y of a jury ve rd ic t. 50 7 F.2 d 55 9, 56 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 74 ); acco rd

Uni te d S ta te s v . Poo le , 54 5 F .3d 91 6, 9 18 (10 th Cir . 20 08 ). And , Howard do es no t

ev en r e mo t e l y s u pp or t th e id ea th at po ll in g a un an im ou s jury in op en co ur t m ay be

a co erci ve act io n. 5

As a fin al act of

in co ns is te nc y , th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce to

co nv ic t J a v i e r of th e co ns pi racy bu t se em s to

, in pa rt, ba se it s ne w tri al ru li ng on a

la te nt ob se rv at io n th at th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Ja vi er was "u nd erwh el m in g." Of co ur se ,

ev en a cu rs or y

rev ie w of t he tri al reco rd refu te s t hi s i de a.

The co ur t m ajor it y fin ds th at th e d i s t r ic t co ur t di d no t ab us e "i ts di sc ret io n 5

whe n it de te rm in ed th at th e err o r s a f f ect ed Ja vi er's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s." Rel y in g on Bras fie ld v. Uni te d St at es , 27 2 U.S. 44 8 (1 92 6)

, an d Am os v Uni te d St at es , 49 6 F.2 d

12 69 (8 th Ci r. 19 74 )

, t h e c ou rt m ajor it y se em s to in di cat e th at th e di st ric t co ur t's

po ll in g pr oc ed ur e m ay ha ve co erce d th e jury. Bras fie ld is , o f co ur se , i n a p po si te as it in vo lv ed a si tu at io n whe re th e tri al jud ge po ll ed a de ad lo cked jury, a pr act ic e th at
"i s ne ve r u s e f

u l a nd is ge ne ral ly ha rm fu l, [an d] no t to be sa nc ti on ed ." 27 2 U.S. at
44 9. Here, ho wev er, we are no t de al in g wit h a de ad lo ck ed jury as th e jury fo rep ers on

an no un ced to th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e jury ha d reac he d a un an im ou s ve rd i c t

, th e

ve rd ic t fo rm sh owe d th at th e juro rs ha d un an im ou sl y fo un d Ja vi er co m m it te d an ob jecti ve of th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy, a n d su bs eq ue nt po ll in g rev eal ed

un an im it y

. And

, far fro m co erci ve co nd uc t, in Am os , we act ua ll y sa nc ti on ed th e tri al

co ur t's co nd uc t of po ll in g an d en ga gi ng a si ng le juro r "t o di sp el an y co nf us io n" in th e

ve rd ic t. 49 6 F.2 d at 12 73

. In su m , Bras fie ld an d Am os do no t es ta bl is h co erci on in

th is cas e an d cert ai nl y do no t es ta bl is h t h a t t h e p ro ced ur e ut il iz ed affe ct ed Ja vi er's

su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts

.

-2 2-Th e d e mini m is na tu re of an y su bs ta nt iv e is su e of la ck of cl ari ty in th e jury

in st ru ct io ns as a who le

, th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce of Ja vi er Am ay a's gu il t, th e to ta l

la ck of an y in di ca t i o n of th e tri al jud ge 's ab il it y to swa y th e jury's de ci si on -m ak in g

cap ab il it ie s by po ll in g a who ll y un an im ou s jury in op en co ur t, an d th e ob vi ou s

st ren gt h of th e twi ce rep eat ed jury po ll s m ak es jud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n a pa lp ab le

real it y in th is cas e. I di ss en t.

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

-2 3-