## 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 o. 10

- 2766 I N RE : U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P etitio ner .

Pe tition fo r a W rito f M andamustothe United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the No rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on, and P etition fo r Rehe aring as Amende d. No . 01 C R 1098-1

—Jam es F. H old erm an, Chief Ju dge
.
S UB MI TT ED J UL Y 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 27, 2010

O P I NI ON J UL Y 30, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . OnJ ul y 2 7, i n r es po ns e to the gov ernm ent’ s r enewed peti ti on f ora w ri t o fm andam us, we i ss ue d a n o r derg r an tingthe pe ti ti o n a nd di r ec ting th e d is tr i ctc o ur t to a dm i t i nt o e vi den ce i n U nited Sta tes v. H errera , th e c rim i nal tr i alo fCl acy W ats on Herre ra o n drug char ges , an e xhibi t l abel ed “Robe rs on S ei zure 2” ; to all ow the gove rnm en t to recallStep he n K o o p to testify at tr i alabo u t the r eco ver y o fl ate nt fi nger pri nts fro m2 N o. 10

- 2766 th at ex h ibit ; an d to allow te st im on y re ga rd in g c om p ar iso n o fthe l at en t pr i nt s wi thk no wn fi ng er pr i nt s ofthe defen dan t. The j udg e ha d e xc l ude d the e xhibi t an d re l ate d test i m ony because he s uspe c ted the gov er nm ent, on the m ost tenuous ofgr ounds, o fhavi ng ta m pered with the e vi d ence, and he threa tened t o gr ant a m i str i althat w ou ld barany furtherpro secuti on o fthe defe nd ant by vi r tu e o fthe c o ns ti tu ti o na l pr o hibi ti o n agai ns t pl ac i ng a per son i n doubl e j eopar dy. Ou r or der furtherst ate d: “The c ase shal l be re ass i gned to a di str i ct j ud ge w ho i s i m m edi ate l y a vai l abl e t o p re sid e, an d th e t ria l sh all re su m e a s s oo n as p os sib le.” ( The tr i alhad beg un on J uly6 and had been i nter rupted f or s ev eraldays because o fthe j ud ge’ s r ulings that g ave r i se t o t wo pe titi o ns f o r mandamus fi l ed by the g o ve r nm en t. ) W e wer e tr o ubl ed t o l ea r n tha t a r epl ac ement j ud ge w as not desi gnat ed u nti l the after noon o fJ uly29 , owing to an unaccountab l e del ay in a pp oi nti ng an acti ng chi efj ud ge to substi tute f orC hi efJ ud ge H ol derm an ( t h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e p r e s i d i n gi n t h i s c a s e wh o m we or dered r ecused) i n ar ra ngi ng f orthe re ass i gnm ent. I n a s up ple m entalo rderis su ed o n the 28th, we noted that Fed. R. Cri m . P. 25 ( a) pro vi des thati n a c ase i n w hi ch “death, si cknes s, o r othe r disab ility ” pre vents the tr i al j ud ge f r o m c o nt i nui ngt o pr es i de ata t r i al, the j udg e who re p laces hi m m ust ce rt i fy hi s f am i l i ar i ty w i th the tr i al re cor d bef or e pr oce edi n g. “The te rm ‘ othe r disabi l i ty’ in R u le 2 5(a ) inc lu d es d isa b ility b y r e as on of re c u sa l.” U nited Sta tes v . S a r to ri, 730 F.2d 973 , 976 (4th C ir. 1984). A nd so o ur s up ple m entalo rderdi re cted the new j ud ge,N o. 10

- 2766 3 bef or e pr oce edi ng with the t ri al, to c erti fy f am i l i ar i ty wi t h t he r e c o r d. W e sa i d i n o ur o r der of the 2 7th tha t we wou l d i ss ue a n o p i n i o n e x p l a i n i n gi t. Thi s i s th a to p i n i o n ; i n i twe also den y the de fend an t’s pet iti on to reh ear our ord er. T h e p e t i t i o n f o r ma n d a mu s h a d b e e n fi l e d j u s t o ne d ay before w e i s s u e d our ord er (w hich i s w hy w e w ere un able , f o r l ack of ti m e, to issue a stat em en t of reason s). W e r ul ed i n una vo i dab l e ha st e be ca us e i n appa r en t r es po ns e to the g o ve r nm en t’ s pet i ti o n the de f en dan t had m ove d t h e d i str i ct j ud ge to decl ar e a m i str i al

— an d th e j udg e ha d a l r ea dy st at ed i n o penc o ur t th ati fhe g r a nt e d a m i st r i a l i two ul d h a v e do ub l e -j e o pa r dy eff ec t o n th e en ti r e ca se ev en th o ug h, he sa i d , the exhibi t “ re l ate s t o one count, Count N o. 3 5, the v er y l ast count .
. . . W hat wil l r em ai n ar e 1 4 c ou n ts .
. . o fwh i ch m ultiple w itness es ha ve testifi ed abou t the de fend an t’s in vo lve m en t. A n d if w e g ra n t a m ist ria l, if a m ist ria l is gr anted, ev er y o ne o ftho se coun ts p ote nti al l y c oul d be d ism iss ed fro m th e sta n d p oin t th at d ou b le j eo p ar d y w ill at ta c h to ea c h an d ev er y on e o f th os e a d d iti o n al c ou n ts .” A nd he invi ted the j uror s t o provo ke a m i str i alby te l l i ng th em: “I ce r ta i nl y woul d unde r st an d i fyou are not available, you h ave serv ed your term , and m ore than y our ter m , as j uror s”

— a r em ar k tha t preci pit ate d no t e s fr o m s e v e r a l j u r o r s e x p r e s s i n gc o n c e r n ab o u tc o nti nuing to ser ve. The j udg e ha d a cc us ed th e g o ve r nm en t o fl yinga nd o t he r m i sco nd uc ta nd o fn o twa nt i ngthe j ur y t o de c i de th e case. Th e secon d accu sat ion i s d iffi cu lt to un d er-4 N o. 10

- 2766
sta nd

. Doubl e j eopar dy w ou l d bar a r etr i ali fthe gov er nm ent had pro cured the m i str i albec ause ofi ts diss ati sf acti on with th e j ury, ev en i fthe m oti on f ora m i str i al w as m ad e by th e d efe n d an t, as it w a s. O r egon v. Ke nne dy, 45 6 U. S

. 6 67, 6 73

- 76 ( 19 82 ) ( g o adi ngthe de f en d an t in to m ov i n g f o r a m ist ria l); U nite d State s v. D initz , 42 4 U
. S. 60 0, 61 1 ( 1976 ) ( sam e); U nited Sta tes v. Wa rren , 59 3 F.3 d 54 0, 54 5 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ) (sa m e). Y et th e ju d ge to ld th e p ro se c u to rs : “I find th e g ov er n m en t’s co n d u c t in see kin g t o precl ud e thi s j ury f ro m m aki ng a deter m i nati o n wi thr eg ar d t o the o th erc o unt s, i fIde te r m i ne that Gover nm ent Ex hibi t Rober son Se i zure 2 i s no t a dm i ssibl e, Ifi nd thatto be an i ntenti onal, p urpose ful sta tem en t tha t you d on’t w an t a de term ination by the j ury in t h i s ca se . . . . [ W ] hat the go ver nm ent wants i s t o h av e t h is jur y n ot d ec id e t h is c as e.” T o prev en t d ou ble j eop a r d y beca us e of a trialj ud ge’s ru lin g t h at is s o p a t en tly u n so u n d as to ex c ee d th e le git im ate bo und s o fj ud i ci alpow er is a l egi ti m ate r ol e f or m an d am u s w h en ot h er m ec h an ism s o f rev iew are u n av ailab le, U nited Sta tes v. Vin ya rd, 539 F. 3d 589 ( 7th C ir . 2 0 08); U nite d State s v. A m ante, 418 F.3d 220 , 2 22 (2d Cir. 2005); U nited Sta tes v. Wexler, 31 F. 3d 117, 1 28 (3d Cir. 1994); U nited Sta tes v. U nited Sta tes D istrict C o urt, 85 8 F
. 2d 534, 537 ( 9th Ci r. 19 88) ; se e g ener al l y In reRhone

- Poul e nc R orer, Inc. , 51 F. 3d 1293 , 12 95 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 5). W e r egr et to say thatthe j ud ge’ s r uling i n thi s case c an onlybe chara cter i zed t h u s. W e no te that thi s j ud ge w as m andam us ed i n In re U nited S t a tes , 39 8 F
. 3d 615 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( per curi am ) , wh en he becam e wrathful tow ar d fe deral pros ecuto rs i n another cri m i nal cas e.N o. 10

- 2766 5 The de f e nd a nt r e s po nd e d t o o ur o r de r o f t he 27 th see m i ngl y withi n m i nutes b y fi l i ng a peti ti on f orr ehe ar i ng( we a cc ept ed his amende d pe ti ti o n f o r fi l i ng th e ne xtda y )

. I n i t he a r g ue d tha t o uro r der i ngmandam us w as i m properbec ause w e had g i ven nei ther hi m no r the j udg e a chan ce to r es po nd t o the pe ti ti o n, as r equi r ed ( he cl ai m s) by F ed. R. App. P. 21(b). Confusi ngl y, thi s s ubsect i on o f t h e r ule r efer s t o a r esponse by the “ re spondent, ” a nd the re spondent i n a pet ition f or ma n d a mu s i s th e j ud g e . B u tR u l e 2 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d th e C o mm i tte e Notes to the 1 996 A m endm ents to R u l e 2 1 m ake cl earthat“r espondent” in ( b) ( 1) r efer s j ust t o p ar ties , not to the j udg e. I nde ed th e j udg e m ay not res po nd t o the petitio n unle ss i nvi ted o r or dered to by the cour t o f appeal s, Fe d. R. A pp . P. 21(b )( 4) , and not w anti ng to del ay the r esum pti on o fthe tr i alwe had not o rder ed or i nvi ted hi m to r epl y. And be ca us e th er e was no ti m e f o r us t o o r dera nd aw ai t a r esponse fro m ei therthe defe n d an t orthe j ud ge bef or e g ra nti ng the peti ti on, th e absence o fsuch a n order did notpre cl ud e o ur g ra nti ng the peti ti on f or m andam us. Rule 2 ofthe ap p ellat e r ule s a uthor i zes a cour t o fap p ea ls o n i ts own i ni ti ati ve to suspend any of thos e r ule s that a re notj uris d icti onali fnece ssa ry“t o expedite i ts deci si on o r f or o th er go od cause

. ” S ee Alva v. Tee n Help , 469 F.3d 94 6, 95 6 n. 17 (10 th C ir. 20 06 ); Laz y O il Co. v. Wi t co Corp. , 16 6 F

. 3d 581, 58 7 ( 3d Ci r. 19 99)

. Good ca us e th er e was . Butno w, in de ci di ngt o de ny th e defen dan t’ s m o ti o n t o r eh ear ou r o r der, we ha ve t r ea te d the defe nd ant’ s m oti ons, the j ud ge’ s r equest to fi l e a r esponse ( w hi ch w e had not r ec eive d bef or e we gr anted6 N o. 10

- 2766 the pet i ti on f orm andam us) , al ong w ith the tr anscr i pt of t he di s t r i c t j ud g e ’ s pe r t i ne nt r e mar k s i n c o ur t, as r espo ns es , pur su an t to F ed. R. App. P. 2 1(b), t o the peti ti on f orm andam us. The de fendant poi nts o ut that18 U
. S. C. § 3 731, wh i ch gov er ns ap p eals by the U ni ted S tat es i n cr i m i nal cas es, do es no t au th o ri ze a n a ppea l fr o m a n o r dere xc l udi ng ev i den ce i fthe o r derwas i ss ue d a fte r the j ur y i s swo r n. C ri st v . Bretz , 437 U .S. 28 , 35 (1 97 8); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Salahud din , 50 9 F
. 3d 85 8, 86 2- 63 an d n. 9 ( 7th Ci r. 2007); U nite d State s v. C ent racchi o , 23 6 F

. 3d 812, 81 3- 14 ( 7th C ir. 20 01 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br ooks , 14 5 F
. 3d 44 6, 45 3 n. 2 ( 1 s tCi r . 1 998)

. Bu tthe g o v e r nme nth a s n o ta ppeal ed f ro m the or der; i t has so ught m anda m us, wh i ch i s ty pi c a l l y di r e c t e d a g a i ns tn o na pp e a l a b l e o r de r s , as o th er wi se a n ap pea l woul d do

. “ The r e i s no ne ed to i ss ue a w rit of m anda m us i fthe n or m al pr oce du re s f orer ro r cor re cti on would suffi ce .” U nited Sta tes v. Vin ya rd, sup ra , 53 9 F
. 3d at5 91

. The y woul d no t in t his ca se ; wer e th e defen dan t to b e ac qui tt ed be ca us e o fthe e xc l us ion of the fi ng er pr i nte vi d ence , do ubl e j eo par dy woul d b ara ny fu rt h e r p r o s ec u tio n of h im . Th e jud ge sa id th at th e e viden ce r el ated to o nl y o ne c o unto fthe i ndi ct m en t, b ut th at is w ro n g. U ni t e d S t at e s v. He rrera , 366 Fed

. A p p ’x 67 4, 67 6-7 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 10 ). Th e e vid en c e is ke y in l i nk i ngthe de f en dant to the c o ns pi r ac y c ha r g ed i n the o th er co unt s, an d i s m ade es pec i al l y i m po r ta nt by the l ong d el ay ( att ributabl e t o diffi cul ty i n l oca ti ng the def endant and bri ngi ng hi m bac k to the Unite d Sta tes f or t r i a l ) bet we e n t he c r i mes wi th whi c h he i s c ha r g e d, w h ich oc c u rre d be t w ee n 19 96 an d 19 99 , an d th e t ria l inN o. 10

- 2766 7 2010

. The fi nger pri nt ev id en ce, unl i ke the m em or i es of w i tness es, had not deter i or ate d w i th the passa ge ofti m e. T h e t ri a l , a s w e s aid , beg an on Ju ly 6 . B efo re th en , i n M ar ch , on the g o ve r nm en t’ s appe alfr o m a n o r dere xcl udi nge vi dence b efo r e tr i alwe ha d r ev er se d the dist r i c t j ud g e ’ s de c i s i o n t o e xc l ud e e v i de nc e t ha t t wo o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s fi n g e r p r i n t s h a d b e e n r e c o v e r e d fr o m a b ag of h er oin w ra p p ed in t ap e a n d fu rt h e r en c as ed in c on d om s a n d fou n d i n a d ru g c ou rie r’s rec tu m . U nited Sta tes v. Herrera , s u pra . The her oi n had been r em ove d f ro m the bag an d p lac ed i n an e vi dence bag( Rober son S e i z ur e 1 ) a nd then bo t h i ta nd the p a c k a g i ng( t he t a pe and condom s) h ad been pla ced i n another evi dence ba g( R o b e r s o n S e i z u r e 2 ) , a n d i twa s th i s s e c o nd exhi b i ttha twa s a ti s s ue . T he di s t r i c tj ud g e ’ s g r o un d f or e xc l ud i ngi twa s the g o v e r nme nt ’ s h a v i ngv i o l a t e d a d isc ov er y d ea d lin e, an d w e r u led th at th er e w as n o in d ica ti on o fb ad f ai thb y the g o ve r nm en t an d tha t th e ex cl usi on o fhi ghl y pr obat ive fi nger pri nt ev i dence w as a dispr opor ti onate sa n c tio n f oran i nnocent vi ol ati on that had not pr ej ud i ced the defe nd ant. A w ee ki nt o t r i althe di st r i ct j ud g e ag ai n o r der ed th e evi dence e x c lu d ed, thi s t i m e be cause ofhi s co ncer n that th e g o ve r nm en t ha dn ’ta dequa te l y de m o ns tr at ed th e re quis i te “chai n ofcusto dy”

— th atthe r e ha d b ee n n o o ppo r tu ni tyto tam perwi tho ro th er wi se mis ha ndl e th e evi dence bet w een when i t was o btai ned and the tr i al

. Yet a ch al l en g e to c ha i n o fc us to dy o r di na r i l y g o es to the w eig h t rat h er th an th e a d m iss ibilit y of t h e e vid en c e. E .g., U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 5 91 F.3d 928 , 934-35 (7th C ir. 2010);8 N o. 10

- 2766 U nited Sta tes v. Lee, 50 2 F
. 3d 69 1, 69 7- 98 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. And al read y b y the e nd o fthe fi r stwee ko ft r i althe g o ve r nm ent had o f f er ed ni ne w itn ess es

— and i t a dd ed a t enth bef or e fi l i ng i ts seco nd m andam us peti ti on

— to est abl i sh th atthe c ha i n h ad be eni nt ac t and thus a ss ua g e th e j ud ge’ s co ncer ns. The j ud ge sta yed the tr i alto enabl e the g ov ernm ent t o peti ti on form andam us. W e g ra nted a b ri effurtherst ay whi l e we c o ns i der ed th e pet i tion, b utupo n b eingune xpe c t e dl y a dv i s e d by the j ud g e tha th e h a dn ’ ty e tma de a fi nal deci si on o n w hetherto excl ud e the ev i dence ( though when he susta i ned the defendan t’s obj ecti on t o th e ev i den ce he ha d g i ve n n o i ndi cati o n tha t hi s r ul i ng w as tenta ti ve) , we denie d the peti ti on without prej ud i ce. Tr i alr es um ed o n J ul y 1 9, a nd thr ee da ys l at erthe j ud ge defi ni ti vel y e xcl ud ed the fin ger pri nt ev i dence on suspic ion o fta m peri ng. H e was di sturbed by the f act that the e xh ib i th a d g a i ne d 2 0 g r a ms i n we i g htb e t ween M ay an d Sep te m b er 20 01 . (O d d ly, h e a t t ac h ed n o s ign ificance to the f act that i t had g ai ned 190 gr am s be tw een Se pte m be r 2 00 1 an d the t r i al

. ) He tho ug htthe wei g ht gai n m i ght ha ve been du e t o f edera l o f fi cer s’ p re ss ing a p iece of ad he sive t a p e con taining th e d efend an t’s fingerpr i nt s ( o bt ai ne d elsew he r e) o nt o the pa ck ag i ngo fthe he r o i n f o un d i n the dr ugc o ur i er ’ s r ec tu m . Aga i n h e sta ye d the tr i alto enabl e the go ver nm ent t o re new i ts qu est for m an d am us , and i t w as t h e govern m en t’s re new ed peti ti on that we gr anted o n J uly27
. The t r an sc r i pt ofthe di st r i ctj udg e’ s r emar k s co ncer ni ng the ev i de n tiar y i ssue re veal s a degr ee ofange rN o. 10

- 2766 9 and hosti l i ty toward the gov er nm ent th at i s i n exces s o f any provo cati on that w e can fi nd i n the re cor d . H e rep e a t e d l y a c c u s e d th e go ve r n me n tl a wy e r s o fl y i n g . He sai d, f orexam ple : “Idon’ t be l i eve yo u w hen you say j ust about anythi ng any m or e be c au se I know that y ou w i l l l i e t o a co urt any t i m e i t hel ps you. Ikno w that

. Isa w you do i t. Ikno w yo u w i ll d o that. You have pro ven that to me b ey ond a rea so nabl e do ubt

. ” H e sa i d: “ I a m g o i ng to b r i ngthe j ur y o ut, a nd Ia m go i ngt o t el l the m the gov er nm ent has f ai l ed, once aga i n, to ha ve w itness es re ady t o p r o c e e d. T he g o v e r nme nti s de l a y i ngthi s c a s e. M embe r s o fthe j ur y , thi s ca se i s be i ngde l ay ed by the g o ve r nm en t. I t ha s be endel ay ed bythe g o ve r nm en t. Yo ur t i me ha s b e e n wa s t e d b y the g o v e r nme nt
. ” He s a i d: “Iwould l i ke you [ the g overn m en t l aw yer s] to go bac k to th e C ou rtof A p p ea ls a n d te ll t h e m , g e e, w e w ou ld li ke to m an d am us J ud ge H olderm an becau se h e w on’t al l ow us to cal l m or e witnesse s o r prove o u r c hai n of custo dy that w e as ked y ou, the Court ofA pp eal s, l ast wee kt o o r derhi m t o pr es en t in th e evi den ce i n the case , to adm it th e d ocum ent, to adm i t the exhibi t i nto ev i den ce . W e no w w an t to c al l mor e wi tn es ses to l aythe f oundati on, witnes ses thatJ ud ge H ol derm an has poi nted o utwe ne ed. W e now a g r ee wi thJ udg e H o l der m an, an d we wer e wro ng l as t wee k when we tr i ed to m an dam us hi m . Iwould l i ke you to g o to the Cour t o f A p p eals and yo u tel l them that

. W i l l yo u do that ?.

. . W ill y o u do tha t? W i l l y o u go to the Co ur t o fAppea l s an d admi t th atyou l i ed to the m . . . . ” H e th r ea te ne d t o c o nd uc t hea rings con cern ing m iscond uc t by t h e prose cu tors ( sh ade s o fthe c o nduc t th atl ed to the i ss ua nc e o fthe wri t o fmandamus i n In re U nited Sta tes , sup ra ).10 N o. 10

- 2766 The g o ve r nm en t ha d e xpl ai ne d t o t he j udg e th atthe r ea so n f o r the i nc r ea se i n wei g htwas tha t th e ba gwi ththe fi ng er pr i nt s, a fter b eingo pen ed so tha t th e pr es en ce a nd am ount o fan i l l ega l drug could b e d ete rm i ned, and l ate r cl ose d up a ga in, had bee n w ei ghed to gether w i th o ther bags

. The r epor te d w ei ght was the weight o fthe packag e c on ta in in g t h e s ev er al b ag s, an d th er e w er e m or e b ag s in i t when i t w as w ei ghed l ate r. Obvi ousl y the packa ge did notga i n 210 g ra m s ( 330 + 2 0 +19 0 =54 0)

— al m ost ha l fa po und

—be ca us e a pi ec e o fthe t ape i n whi cho ne o fth e ba g s w a s w r a p p e d w a s r e p l a c e d b y a s t r i p o ft a pe conta i ni ng the defendant’s fi nger pri nts. The j ud ge acknowle d ged thathi s s upp osi ti on o fta m peri ng was “s pec ul at i ve , ” whi chi s anunde r st at ement
. F o r a m o ng othe r thi ngs the defendant w as not extr adit ed f ro m P an am a u n t i l lon g a fte r th e a lleg ed ta m p er in g, an d u n til he wa s e xt r a di t e d the g o v e r nme ntdi d n o th a v e a se t o ffi ng er pr i nt s k no wn to be hi s. And no o ne ha s ex pla i ned how fingerpri nts o n another pie ce o fm ate ri al coul d have be en tr ansfer re d to the a dh esi ve si de of t he t a pe , wh i c h wa s wh e r e the y we r e f o un d. A ny such tam peri ng w oul d be a cr i m i nal o bstr ucti on o f j u s t i c e . A j u d g e s h o u l d n o ta c c u s e a n y o n e o fa c r i me on the bas i s o fan i m pla usibl e s p ec ula ti on. The def en dan t’ s pet i ti o n a nd a m en ded pet i ti o n f or r eh ea r i ng do not defe nd the j ud ge’ s theor y. The defe nd an t w i l l be abl e a t t ri alto ar gue that th e j ur y s ho ul d di sr eg ar d the e vi den ce, bu t the r e i s no j us ti fi ca ti o n f o r e xc l udi ngi t o n the “ spe cul at i ve ” ground ex c og ita te d by t h e jud ge . U nite d State s v. P ri et o , 54 9 F
. 3dN o. 10

- 2766 11 51 3, 52 4-2 5 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ; U nite d State s v. Kel ly, 14 F. 3d 11 69 , 117 5 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ); U ni ted Sta te s v. Har r i ngt on, 92 3 F.2 d 13 71 , 137 4 (9 th C ir. 19 91 ) ( “ m e r e ly ra isin g t h e p os sibi l i ty ofta m peri ng i s no t s uffi cien t to re nd erev i dence i na dm i ss ibl e” )

. S o c l ea r i s th i s, a nd s o mani f es t the e xce ss o fe m o ti o n de m ons trate d b y the j udg e i n e xcl ud i ng the ev i dence, thatwe can o nl y c oncl ud e that th e ex ac tings ta nda r d f o r the granto fa wri t o fmand am u s, C hen ey v. U nited S ta tes D istrict C o urt, 54 2 U.S

. 36 7, 380 ( 20 04 ); In re R hone-Po ule nc Ro re r, Inc. , sup ra , 51 F. 3d at 1294

- 95 (“irre parabl e i nj ury i s no t s uffi ci ent f or m andam us; ther e m ust a l so b e an abuse o fdi scr eti on that can f ai rl y b e char acte ri zed as gr oss , ve rycl ear, o r u n u su ally se riou s” ); U nited Sta tes v. Sp ilo tro , 88 4 F
. 2d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6

- 0 7( 7 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) , h a s b e e n s a t i s fi e d. A word fi nal l y about our deci sion t o or der the cas e r eassigned t o a no th erj udg e. As e xpl ai ne d i n In re U nited Sta tes , 57 2 F
. 3d 301, 308 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( a di f f er ent c ase f ro m the In re U nited Sta tes ci ted e ar l i er ) , the re cusalo f a j ud ge i s r equire d “ w hen a re aso nabl e per son perce i ves a s i gni fi cant r i sk that the j ud ge w il l r eso l ve the c ase o n a bas is othe r tha n the mer i ts
. ” S ee 2 8 U. S

. C. § 4 55 ( a) ; R eserve M inin g C o . v. Lord , 529 F.2d 181 , 188-89 (8th C ir. 1976 ) ( en banc)

. W hen the gov er nm ent fil ed i ts i ni ti al i nter l ocuto ryap p eal, the dist ri ct j ud ge w i thout adequate g r ou nd s acc us ed th e g o ve r nm en t o fa ppea l i ngf o r the so le p u rp os e o f d ela yin g t h e t ria l, an d im p lie d , aga in w i thout basi s i n the re cor d, that the g ove rnm ent had acte d i n ba d f a ith by not com p lyi ng w ith th e j ud ge’s d iscovery ord er. A fter the trialbeg a n, he told th e j ury th atthe gov er nm en t was r es po ns ibl e f o r the numer o us12 N o. 10

- 2766 del ays i n the case and he threa tened t o tel l the j ury that i t “ s ho ul d c o ns i de r t he c a s e b a s e d up o n e v e r y t hi ng tha t has happened in the cour tr oo m , pre sente d i n the cour tr o o m, i n c l u d i n gth e d e l a y s th a th a v e t ak en p l a c e . ” No reaso nabl e per so n wo ul d f ai l t o pe r ce i ve a s i g ni fi ca nt r i sk th at th e j udg e’ s r ul i ng s i n the c as e m i g htb e i nfl uenced by hi s unre aso nabl e fury toward the pros ecuto rs . W e a re s at i sfi ed that our or der o fJ uly27, as supplem ented o n J uly28 , was so un d; and w e deny the pet i ti on f orr ehear i ng.

8- 5- 10