## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January23,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee , v. K A T H E R IN E M E L A D IE RO BE RT S ON , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t . N o. 05- 7020

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F OR THE EA S TE RN DI S TR I CT OF OKLAHOM A

( D. C. No . CR - 0 4 - 0 9 4 - 0 1 - W H ) B arr yL . D err yberr y , R es ear ch and W r i t i ng Speci al i s t( and Paul D . B runt on, Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , O ffi ce of t he Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , w i t h hi m on t he b rie fs), T u lsa , O k lah o m a , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. D enni s A . Fr i es , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( and Shel don J . Sper l i ng, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y , w ith h im o n the b ri ef), M u sk o g ee , O k laho m a, fo r Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee.

B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. KELLY , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2 -

D efe ndant - A ppel l antK ather i ne M el adi e R ober t s on appea l s fr om her convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o us e an i nt er s t at e comm er ce faci l i t yi n t he comm i s s i on of a murde r - for - hi r e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1958( a) . Fol l ow i ng her convi ct i on, M s . R ober t s on w as s ent ence d t o 120 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed by24 m ont hs ’ s uper vi s ed r el eas e. O n appea l , s he ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t( 1) im p ro p e rlyin stru c ted th e ju rya s to a n e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se , an d (2 ) a b u se d its d iscreti o n in fail ing to h o ld an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g to d eterm ine w h ethe r a conver s at i on betw een a s t at e- cour tdeputycl er k ( “deputycl erk”) and a j ur orw as i mp r o p e r . Ex e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m.

B ackgr ound M s . R ober t s on w as char ged i n a fi ve counti ndi ct m ent . C ount1 al l eged th a t M s. R o b e rtso n c o n sp ire d w ith H u g h A lan M e a n s, h e r fo rm e r e m p lo y e r w ith w h o m s h e h a d a n e x t r a m a r i t a l a ffa i r , t o u s e a n i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e fa c i l i t y— a te le p h o n e — in th e c o m m is s io n o f a m u rd e r- fo r- h ir e in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 (a ). I R . D o c . 5 . T h e o bjec t o f th e c o n sp ira c yw a s to h ire a “ p ro fe ss io n a l” or“hi tm an” t o m ur derherhus band, B r et tR ober t s on. C ount s 2 t hr ough 5 al l eged subst anti ve v i olat i on s of § 1 95 8(a) based o n v ari ou s t el eph on e cal l s byM s. R o b e rt s o n . Fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al , M s . R ober t s on w as convi ct ed on al l fi ve count s . T he- 3 -

di s t r i ctcour tt hen gr ant ed a j udgm entof ac qui t t al on count s 2 t hr ough 5, bas ed on its fin d in g th a t n o e v id e n c e s u p p o rt e d th e c o n s id e ra tio n e le m e n t o f § 1 9 5 8 (a ). I R . D oc. 46; V I R . at791- 95; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. W i ckl und, 114 F. 3d 151, 154 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T en day s l at er , M s . R ober t s on fi l ed a mot i on fornew t r i al bas ed, i n par t , on al l egedl yi m pr operj ur orcont act . See I R . D oc. 47. I n connec t i on w i t h t hat m oti on , M s. R ob ert son als o reque st ed a h eari ng . S ee I R . D oc. 48 at3. M s. R o b e rtso n c laim e d th a t, du rin g trial, h e r a tto rn e y s w itn e ss e d a sta te c o u rt d e p u ty clerk sp ea k ing w ith a juro r on the s teps o f th e fed era l cou rt h o u se. A fter the jury return ed it s g u il tyv erd ict , o n e o f h er a tt o rne y s learn ed that the s am e d ep u tyclerk h a d a lleg e d lym a d e d isp a ra g in g re m a rk s re g a rd in g M s. R o b e rtso n to h is cow orkers . I n r e s p o n s e t o M s . Ro b e r t s o n ’ s mo t i o n , t h e g o v e r n me n ts u b mi t t e d a n F BI r epor tconce r ni ng an FB I i nt er vi ew of t he deputycl er k. See I . R . D oc. 52 E x. 1 at 1. T he i nt er vi ew t ended t o s how t hat : ( 1) t he deputycl er k w as hai l ed byt he j ur or w h en the d ep u tyclerk w as lea v ing the fed era l cou rt h o u se; (2) the d ep u tyclerk w as unaw ar e thatt he j ur orw as s er vi ng as a j ur or ; ( 3) t he deputycl er k r ecogni zed t he j ur orfr om l i ves t ock s how s w her e the j ur or ’ s daught eral s o s how s catt l e; ( 4) the ju ror inq u ir ed h o w the d ep u tyclerk ’s ne p h ew w as d o ing ; ( 5 ) t h e e n ti re conver s at i on l as t ed one mi nut e; and ( 6) nei t hert he deputycl er k nort he j ur or- 4 -

m ade a nycomm ent s aboutM s . R ober t s on ort he tr i al . I d. at1- 2. H avi ng r evi ew ed the evi dence , t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed both t he mot i on fornew t r i al and t he r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng. I R . D oc. 53 at4.

D i s cus s i on I . J ur y I ns t ruct i ons M s . R ober t s on ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o i ncl ude an e l ement of th e o ffe n se , a s p e c ific in ten t th a t a m u rd e r b e c o m m itt e d , in its in stru c tio n s a s to t he cr i m e of c ons pi r acyt o vi ol at e § 1958( a) . She al s o ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ct cour ts houl d have de fi ned murde ras t he unl aw ful ki l l i ng of anotherw i t h m al i ce afor ethought . I n per t i nentpar t , § 1958( a) pr ovi des : “W hoever. . . us es orcaus es a n o th e r . . . to u se . . . an yfa c ili tyo f in ter sta te . . . co m m e rc e , w ith in ten t th a t a m u rd e r b e c o m m itte d in v io la tio n o f th e la w s o f

a n yS ta te o r t h e U n ite d S ta te s . . . as cons i der at i on fora pr om i s e oragr eementt o pay , anyt hi ng of pec uni aryval ue, o r w h o c o n s p ir e s to d o s o . . .” s h a ll b e s u bje c t to im p ri s o n m e n t a n d /o r fin e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 (a ) ( 2 0 0 4 ). G iv e n a p ro p e r o bjec tio n , the o m iss io n o f a n e lem e n t f

ro m a n in stru c tio n is s u bje c t to h a rm le s s e rr o r r e v ie w . N e d e r v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 7 U .S . 1 , 8 -1 0 (1 9 9 9 ). B o th p arti es a g ree , h o w ev er, th at M s. R o b inso n fa il ed to o bject t o the ju ry- 5 -

i ns t ruct i ons att r i al , and thus w e r evi ew t hi s i s s ue forpl ai n err or . See U ni t ed S tat es v . L aV all ee , 4 3 9 F . 3 d 6 7 0 , 6 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); F ed . R . C ri m . P . 3 0 (d) & 52( b) . Pl ai n err orexi s t s onl yw her e ( 1) t her e w as err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, ( 3) t hat affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and ( 4) t hats er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yor publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 725, 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 ); s e e a ls o F e d . R . C ri m P . 5 2 (b ). T he d i stri ctcou rtbelow i nst ruct ed the j uryas t o co un t1 as fo l l ow s: T itl e 1 8 U n ited S tate s C o d e S e c tio n 1 9 5 8 (a ) p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt th a t w h o e v e r tra v e ls in o r c a u se s a n o th e r to tra v e l in i nt er s t at e comm er ce orus es orcaus es anothert o us e the mai l orany fac i l i t yi n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce w i t h t he i nt entt hata murde r be comm i t t ed as cons i der at i on fort he r ece i ptof oras cons i der at i on fora pr om i s e oragr eementt o payanyt hi ng of pec uni aryval ue orw ho cons pi r es t o do s o i s gui l t yof an offens e aga i ns tt he l aw s of t he U nit ed S t at es. T o fi nd t he defendantgui l t yof t hi s cr i m e y ou m us tbe convi nced thatt he governm enthas pr oved ea ch of the fol l ow i ng b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t: F irst, th e d e fe n d a n t ag re e d w ith a t lea st o n e o th e r p e rso n to v io late t h e l a w; [S] econd, one of the cons pi r at or s engage d i n atl eas tone overtact fur t her i ng t he cons pi r acy ’ s obj ect i ve; [T]hi r d, t he defendantknew t he es s ent i al obj ect i ve of the cons pi r acy w as t o us e an i nt er s t at e fa ci l i t yi n a murde rforhi r e; [F] our t h, t he defendantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l ypar t i ci pat ed; [F] i ft h, t her e w as i nt er depende nce a m ong t he mem ber s of t he c o n sp ira c y . T h a t is th e m e m b e rs in so m e w a yo r m a n n e r in ten d e d to actt ogetherfort hei rs har ed mut ual benef i tw i t hi n t he s cope of

t he- 6 -

c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e d . V I R . at770- 71. A s M s . R obi ns on corr ect l yas s er t s , t he i ns t ruct i on di d not i ncl ude “i nt entt hata murde rbe comm i t t ed” a s an el ement of t he offens e. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d, how ever , r ead the al l egat i ons i n count1 of t he i ndi ct m entt o t he j ur y , i ncl udi ng M s . R ober t s on’ s al l eged ove r tact s and the fa ctt hats he w as al l eged t o have i nt ended thata murde rbe comm i t t ed. V I R . 768- 71. “A cons pi r acyi s a part ner s hi p i n cr i m e[, ] ” and “ has i ngr edi ent s , as w el l as i m pl i cat i ons , di s t i nctfr om t he compl et i on of t he unl aw ful pr oj ect . ” Pi nker t on v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 U . S. 640, 644 ( 1946) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “[T] he es s ence of anycons pi r acyi s ‘ t he agr eementorconfe der at i on t o comm i ta cr i m e. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. H ans on, 41 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B ay er , 331 U . S. 532, 542 ( 1947) ) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. B i caks i z, 194 F. 3d 3 9 0 , 3 9 8 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (n o tin g , w ith re g a rd to a c o n v ictio n fo r c o n sp ira c yto vi ol at e 18 U . S. C . § 1958, t hat“[a ] n es s ent i al el ement of t he cr i m e of c ons pi r acy i s an agr eement ”) . M or eover , “[c ] ons pi r acyt o comm i ta part i cul ars ubs t ant i ve offe ns e ca nnotexi s tw i t houtatl eas tt he degr ee of cr i m i nal i nt entnece s s aryfor t he s ubs t ant i ve offens e i t s el f. ” I ngr am v. U ni t ed St at es , 360 U . S. 672, 678 (19 5 9 ). T ur ni ng t o t he el ement s of t he s ubs t ant i ve offens e, § 1958( a) r equi r es t he governm entt o pr ove thatt he defendant : ( 1) us ed orcaus ed anothert o us e anyA s a r es ul t , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons on t he el ement s of t he 1 cons pi r acyoffe ns e, att he veryl eas t , s houl d have be en as fol l ow s : ( 1) t he defe ndantagr eed w i t h atl eas tone otherper s on t o vi ol at e the l aw ; ( 2) t he d e fe n d a n t k n e w th e e ss e n tial o bjec tiv e o f th e c o n sp ira c yw a s to u se a n in ter sta te fac i l i t yi n a murde rforhi r e; ( 3) t he defendant , att he t i m e the cons pi r acyw as e n ter e d in to , inte n d e d th a t a m u rd e r b e c o m m itt e d ; (4 ) th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g ly and vol unt ar i l ypart i ci pat ed; and ( 5) t her e w as i nt er depende nce a m ong t he m ember s of t he cons pi r acy . A l s o, beca us e the i ndi ct m enti n t hi s cas e cha r ged an o v e rt a c t as to th e § 1 9 5 8 (a ) c o n sp ira c yc o u n t, th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly i ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hati thad t o fi nd t hat“one of t he cons pi r at or s engage d i n at l eas tone overtactfur t her i ng t he cons pi r acy ’ s obj ect i ve. ” W e nee d not , and do not , deci de i n t hi s cas e, how ever , w hetheran overtacti s al w ay s r equi r ed fora § 1 9 5 8 (a ) c o n s p ir a c yc o n v ic tio n . - 7 - fac i l i t yof i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce; ( 2) w i t h t he i nt entt hata murde rbe comm i t t ed; ( 3) as cons i der at i on fora pr om i s e oragr eementt o payanyt hi ng of pecuni aryval ue. See 18 U . S. C . § 1958( a) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. R i t t er , 989 F. 2d 318, 321 ( 9t h C i r . 1993) ( s et t i ng outs i m i l arel ement s as t o t he “tr avel ” mode p o rt ion o f § 1 9 5 8 (a)). W e ten d to ag ree w ith M s. R o b ertson that the d istri ct co u rt ’s j u ry in stru c tio n s o n th e re q u ire d e lem e n ts o f c o n sp ira c yto v io late § 1 9 5 8 (a ) sh o u ld have i ncl uded i nt ent t hat a m ur der be comm i t t ed. T hi s el ement m us tbe pr oven 1 in o rd e r to o b tain a c o n v ictio n o n th e su b sta n tiv e o ffe n se o f u sin g a n in ter sta te comm er ce faci l i t yi n t he comm i s s i on of a murde r - for - hi r e. See U ni t ed St at es v. W i nt er s , 33 F. 3d 720, 721 ( 6t h C i r . 1994) ( “C ongr es s di d i ncl ude an e l ement of in te n t . . . in [ § 1 9 5 8 (a )]

— a d e fe n d a n t m u s t a c t ‘ w ith in te n t’ to m u rd e r.” ). C ons equent l y , t hati nt entm us tal s o be pr oven i n anycons pi r acyconvi ct i on. C f.B ec au se M s. R o b ertson h as fail ed to sh o w that h er su b stan ti al ri g h ts w ere 2 affect ed, w e nee d notdeci de w hethert he di s tr i ctcour tcomm i t t ed err oror , i f s o, w h e th e r t h a t e rr o r w a s p la in . - 8 - In g ra m , 3 6 0 U .S . at 6 7 8 (e x p lain in g th a t th e c rim in a l o ffe n se o f c o n sp ira c yto w i l l ful l yevade fede r al t axes “obvi ous l ycannotbe comm i t t ed i n t he abs ence of k n o w le d g e o f

w illf u ln e s s ” ). D es pi t e the for egoi ng, w e ar e of the opi ni on t hatM s . R ober t s on has not s how n t hathers ubs t ant i al r i ght s w er e affec t ed— i n ot herw or ds , s he w as not pr ej udi ced. See O l ano, 507 U . S. at734 ( expl ai ni ng t hat“t o affects ubs t ant i al

2 r i ght s ” “means t hatt he err orm us thave be en pr ej udi ci al ”) . T o begi n, t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons , as a w hol e, cont ai ned a c ons i s t entt heme: t he us e of a n i nt er s t at e comm er ce faci l i t yw i t h t he i nt entt hata murde rbe comm i t t ed. T he di s t r i ctcour ti nfor m ed the j ur yas t o count1 t hati thad t o fi nd t hatM s . R ober t s on

“ k n e w th e e ss e n tial o bjec tiv e o f th e c o n sp ira c yw a s to u se a n in ter sta te fa c ili tyin a m u rd e r fo r h ire ,” id ., a n d it i s d ifficu lt t o se e h o w th e ju ryc o u ld fin d (w h ich it di d) t hatM s . R ober t s on ent er ed an a gr eementknow i ng one obj ect i ve of the c o n sp ira c yw a s a m u rd e r-fo r-h ire w ith o u t als o fin d in g th a t sh e in ten d e d th a t a m ur derbe comm i t t ed. M or eover , w hen i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yon t he s ubs t ant i ve count s 2 t hr ough 5, t he di s t r i ctcour tr epea t ed § 1958( a) ’ s l anguage and i ns t ruct ed th a t th e s e c o n d e le m e n t o f th e o ffe n s e w a s th e “ u s e o f a n in te rs ta te fa c ility . . . w i t h t he i nt entt hata murde rbe comm i t t ed . . . . ” V I R . at772. A l s o, t he di s t r i ctM s . R ober t s on t el ephoned a for m erboy fr i end and a r r anged a m eet i ng 3 w i t h hi m . Sugges t i ve of he ri nt ent , t he form erboy fr i end t es t i fi ed thatatt he m eet i ng, M s . R ober t s on expl ai ned thats he w ant ed herhus band gone. A . . . . and I as ked her , I s ai d w hatdo y ou m ean gone , y ou m ean gone o u t of y o u r l ife o r go n e o u t of y o u r m arriage o r go n e six fe et un d er?

. . . Q . W h a td i d s h e s a y? A . S h e sa id sh e w an ted h im six fee t un d er. Q . D i d y ou con t i nu e dis cussi ng t his ? A . W e d id . S h e a sk e d m e if I k n e w o f

a n yb o d yth a t sh e c o u ld g e t in c o n ta c t w ith to h a v e – h a v e it d o n e , h a v e h e r h u s b a n d d is p o s e d o f, I - 9 - c o u rt in stru c ted th a t “[ t]h e g o v e rn m e n t m u st p ro v e th a t th e u se o f a n in ter sta te fac i l i t yw as done w i t h t he i nt entt o fur t herorfac i l i t at e the comm i s s i on of t he m ur der . Y ou ar e thus bei ng as ked t o l ook i nt o t he defendant ’ s m i nd and as k w hat w as t he defendant ’ s purpos e i n us i ng i nt er s t at e fa ci l i t i es . ” I d. at773. T he in stru c tio n s, th e re fo re , m a d e it cle a r th a t a c o n v ictio n p u rsu a n t to § 1 9 5 8 (a ) c o u ld notoccuri n t he abs ence of an i nt entt hata murde rbe comm i t t ed. A nd, gi ven t he natur e of the evi dence and the gui l t yver di ct s on count s 2 t hr ough 5, w e thi nk t hat th e ju ry n e c e s s a ri ly fo u n d th e e x is te n c e o f th a t in te n t. Fur t her , t her e w as overw hel m i ng evi dence pr es ent ed t o t he j ur yatt r i al from w hich i tcou l d h ave fou nd t hat the all eged agreem ent bet w een M s. R ober t s on and M r . M eans w as ent er ed i nt o w i t h t he i nt entt hata murde rbe comm i t t ed. See W as hi ngt on v. R ecue nco, 126 S. C t . 2546, 2552 ( 2006)

3g u e s s . . . .

I V R . ( 2 T r . ) at350- 51 ( t es t i m onyof H eath Shofner ) . T he form erboy fr i end expl ai ned i tm i ghtcos t“upw ar ds of $100, 000” w hi ch w as m or e than the $25, 000 M s . R ober t s on had r es er ved fort he t as k. I d. - 10 - ( expl ai ni ng t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o i ns t ructt he j ur yon an el ement of t he offe ns e i s s ubj ectt o har m l es s err oranal y s i s and thatw e must“as k[] w hethert he j ur yw oul d have r etur ned the s ame ver di ctabs entt he err or ”) . T he j udgm entof acqui t t al on count s 2 t hr ough 5 does notal t ert hatconcl us i on beca us e the acqui t t al w as bas ed on the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal i nt erpr et at i on of w hata di ffe r ent elem en t ( co n side rati o n ) req u ir es, no t on the s tr en g th o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce . A cc o rdin g ly , ev en if w e w ere to d ec ide th at t h e d istri ct co u rt ’s o m iss io n sa tisfied th e first tw o e lem e n ts o f th e O lan o sta n d a rd , w h ich w e d o n o t, t he omi s s i on w as har m l es s , and thus M s . R ober t s on’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w er e not affect ed. M s . R ober t s on addi t i onal l ycont ends t hatt he j ur ys houl d have be en in stru c ted th a t m u rd e r is d e fin e d a s th e k ill in g o f a n o th e r h u m a n b e in g w ith m al i ce a for ethought . See 18 U . S. C . § 1111( a) ( 2006) ; O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 21 § 701. 7( A ) ( 2006) . W e di s agr ee. I n enac t i ng § 1958( a) , C ongr es s cr i m i nal i zed one s peci fi c type of murde r— namel y , m ur der - for - hi r e us i ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce fac i l i t i es . A n i ns t ruct i on on m al i ce a for ethoughtw oul d have be en s uper fl uous- 11 -

beca us e pr emedi t at i on i s i m pl i ci ti n t he hi r i ng of a thi r d part yt o ki l l another hum an bei ng. I n ot herw or ds , t her e i s no need t o i ns t ructt he j ur yt hatm ur der r equi r es a fi ndi ng of m al i ce a for ethoughtw hen the i ns t ruct i ons s t at e thatt he under l y i ng cr i m e r equi r es a fi ndi ng of one s peci fi c type of pr emedi t at i on— her e, t he murde rof anotheri n excha nge fors om ethi ng of pec uni aryval ue. A nd i f one ent er s i nt o an agr eementcal l i ng fort he dea t h of anotheri n excha nge for s o m e th in g o f

p e c u n ia ry v a lu e , th e n m a lic e a fo re th o u g h t n e c e s s a ri ly ex is ts . I I . H ear i ng R egar di ng I m pr operJ ur orC ont act M s. R o b e rtso n c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in deny i ng herr eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng r egar di ng t he conve r s at i on betw een a s t at e- cour tdeputycl er k and a j ur or . M s . R ober t s on s eems t o s ugges tt hatan evi dent i aryhear i ng i s r equi r ed w heneve ra j ur orhas a conve r s at i on w i t h an i ndi vi dual and i ti s know n t hatt he i ndi vi dual has pr evi ous l ym ade di s par agi ng r emar ks aboutt he defendantt o ot her s . T he governm entr es ponds bypoi nt i ng out t hat there i s no ev i den ce t hat the jur or and the dep utycl erk ever di scussed M s. R o b e rtso n o r h e r p e n d in g trial. W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f a m o ti o n fo r ne w tr ial an d ev iden ti ary hear i ng bas ed upon al l eged j ur orbi as foran abus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. E a ste r, 9 8 1 F .2 d 1 5 4 9 , 1 5 5 2 -5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). “W h e n c o n f ro n ted w ith a c laim of j ur orbi as , t he tr i al cour thas w i de di s cr et i on i n deci di ng how t o pr ocee d. ” I d.- 12 -

at 15 5 3 . F o r ex am p le, “o n rare o cc asio n s itis w ith in the d istri ct co u rt ’s d isc re tio n to re f

u se to h o ld a h e a rin g w h e n it ca n c lea rlyb e e sta b lish e d th a t a hear i ng w oul d notbe us eful ornece s s ary . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M cV ei gh, 153 F. 3d 1166, 1186 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) abr ogat ed on othergr ounds byA ppr endi v. N ew Jerse y , 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 (20 0 0 ). “I n a cr i m i nal cas e, anypr i vat e comm uni cat i on, cont act , ort amper i ng d ir ec tl yo r i n d ir ec tl y , w ith a juro r du ri n g a tri al ab o u t th e m att er p en d ing b efo re t he j ur yi s , forobvi ous r eas ons , deemed pr es um pt i vel ypr ej udi ci al . . . . ” R emm er v . U n ited S tate s, 3 4 7 U .S . 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 (1 9 5 4 ). W e h a v e p re v io u slyq u a lifie d th is pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce, how ever , byr equi r i ng a s how i ng byt he defendantt hat t he comm uni cat i on orcont actw as “aboutt he mat t erpendi ng befor e the j ur y . ” See U ni t ed St at es v. B r ooks , 161 F. 3d 1240, 1246 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . T he defe ndantm us tal s o demonst r at e “thatan unauthor i zed c ont actcr eat ed ac tual j ur orbi as ; cour t s s houl d notpr es um e thata cont actw as pr ej udi ci al . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fr os t , 125 F. 3d 346, 377 ( 6t h C i r . 1997) . O t herw i s e, a R emm erhear i ng w o u ld b e re q u ire d “ b a se d o n e a c h o f th e m u lti p le o rd in a ryin c id e n tal c o n tac ts betw een n on -s equ est ered j urors and virtuall yanyotherperson d uri ng t he co urse o f a tr ia l.” B ro o k s , 1 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6 . H er e, t her e i s no evi dence t hatt he conve r s at i on ati s s ue w as aboutt he m at t erpendi ng befor e the j ur y . R ather , M s . R ober t s on w oul d have us i nfert hat- 13 -

t he conve r s at i on t ouched on the mat t erpendi ng befor e the j urys i m pl ybeca us e t he deputycl er k had made di s par agi ng r emar ks aboutM s . R ober t s on on pr i or occa s i ons . W e dec l i ne t o do s o. T he governm entm ade a s how i ng t hatt he conver s at i on ati s s ue w as i ni t i at ed byt he j ur or , extr emel ys hor ti n dur at i on, and neverconce r ned M s . R ober t s on orhert r i al . M s . R ober t s on has br oughtfor t h no evi dence , ot hert han i nnuendo, t o i ndi cat e thatt he conve r s at i on w as anyt hi ng ot hert han fr i endl ybant er . W e w i l l notr equi r e a Rem m erhear i ng bas ed on i nnuendo al one. W e al s o not e thatt he di s t r i ctcour tadmoni s hed the j ur yatt he b e g in n in g o f

trial th a t “d u rin g th is tria l y o u ’re n o t to d isc u ss th is c a se w ith any on e or perm i tany on e t o d i scuss i tw i t h y ou . ” II I R . (1 T r. ) at19 . D espi t e M s. R o b e rtso n ’s u rg in g , w e w ill n o t ea silya ss u m e th a t a ju ro r d isre g a rd e d th is i ns t ruct i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ar t er , 973 F. 2d 1509, 1513 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( “W e pr es um e j ur or s w i l l r emai n t rue t o t hei roath and cons ci ent i ous l yfol l ow t he trial c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s.” ). In su m , the re w a s in su fficie n t ev id e n c e to g iv e rise to th e R e m m e r p re su m p tio n a n d , ac c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g b o th th e re q u e s t fo r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g a n d th e m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l. AF F I RMED .