## 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. 09

- 2308 J ES S E W EBS TER, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 99 C6510

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge
.
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 21, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 19, 2011

Befo re B AUER, S YKES, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . I n 199 5 a federa lj ury convi cted J es se W eb st ero n c o ca i ne - tr affi ck i nga nd t ax -f raud charg es, and hi s di re ct a pp eal s were u n su cces sful. S om etim e a fterhi s t ri al, W ebst erdi sco ver ed that a m em ber ofthe j ury had c alle d in s i ck one day i n the m i dd l e o f del iber ati ons. W ebst erfi l ed a hab eas p etit i on under 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2255 al l eging that del iber ati ons proce ede d th at day i n the j uror ’ s absence , vi ol ati ng hi s r i ght t o tr i alby2 N o. 09

- 2308 a j ury oftwel ve. The go ver nm en t did notdi spute thata j ur o r was abs en t f o r a da y b utmai nt aine d tha t th e re st ofthe j ury w as sent hom e a nd di d not del iber ate that day. I n re sponse to the hab eas peti ti on, the dist ri ct j u dge s e nta n i nv e s t i g a t o r t o i nt e r v i e w a l l the j ur o r s e xc e pt the on e w ho ca l l ed i n si ck. The i nvest i gat orl ate r tes ti fi ed ab ou t t h e re su lts of th e in te rv iew s. A f te r w eig h in g t h is an d o th erev i den ce , the j udg e den i ed § 22 55 r el i ef

. The j ud ge bega n by noti ng tha t i fdel iber ati ons proce eded wi tho nl y e l ev en ju r o r s pr es en t, W eb st er ’ s co nv i ct i o ns w oul d have t o be v acat ed und erthi s co urt’ s deci si on i n U nite d State s v. A raujo , 6 2 F
. 3 d 9 3 0 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 )

. B ut th e jud ge h eld th at W eb st e r p r o c ed u ra lly d efa u lte d h is tw elv e-p er so n j u ry cla im by failin g t o ra ise itin h is d i r e c ta p p e a l o r i n h i s § 2 2 5 5 p e t i ti o n. Ul t i ma t e l y, h o wev er , t he j ud ge re ached the i ssue by a di ffer ent r oute. W ebst er had argue d i n th e alternative th at th e baili ff n ev erto l d the co urt about the m i ssi ng j urorand i nstea d i nstr ucted the j uror s t o continue del ibe ra ting i n hi s abse nc e. Thi s, W ebste r c o nt en ded, was a fr au d o n the cour t, j usti fyi ng § 2255 re l i ef

. The j ud ge rej ecte d t h is ar gu m en t, fi nd i ng i nsuffi ci ent pr oo fo fi m properdel iber ati ons. W e a ffi rm , tho ugh w e no te seve ra l er ro rs i n the w ay th e § 225 5 peti ti on was handle d. Fi rs t, W ebst erdi d not p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l th i s t we l v e - p er so n j u r y c l a i m. He c ou ld n oth av e ra ise d it on d ire c t a p p ea l be c au se h e d id n otkn ow of th e jur or ’s a b se n c e, an d h e a d e q u a t ely r ai se d i t in hi s § 22 55 pe ti ti o n b y no tingthe f ac t o ftheN o. 09

- 2308 3 j u ro r’s ab se n c e a n d ge n er ally alleg in g a vio lat ion of h is r i g h t t o a j u r y o f t we l v e . O n th e me r i t s , h o we ve r , t he claim i s d efi cient
. In rejecting W ebst er’s al tern ative argum ent, the j ud ge f ound that th e evidence did notes tabl i sh thatthe j ury del iber ate d i n the abse nce o fthe tw elfth j ur or. Thi s f ac tu alfi ndi ngi s no t cl ea r l y e r r o ne o us , a nd it re so lve s W eb st er ’s a p p ea l. A l though we ar e a ffirm in g the j ud gm ent, we have tw o cau tionary com m en ts reg a r d ing the district cou rt’s appr o ac h t o the § 2 25 5 pet i ti o n: ( 1) F o r r ea so ns we wi l l e xp l a i n, the j ud g e r e a d A raujo too broa dly ; and (2 ) under Rul e 6 06(b) o fthe Fed er al R ule s o f E vide nc e, th e investigator’s testim ony abou t the i nt ervi ew s with the j uror s was i nadm i ssibl e.

I . B a c kg r o und I n 199 5 W ebst erwas i nd i cted o n five co unts: conspi ra cy to posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute k i l ogr am quanti ti es ofco cai ne; poss ess i on with i ntent to dist ribute 1 5 k i l ogr am s o fco caine; at tem pt to poss ess wi thi n t e n tt o d i s t r ib u t e 2 5 k i l o g r a ms o fc o c a i n e ; a nd tw o counts offi l i ng fa lse tax r etur ns. H e pl eaded not gui l ty and procee ded to tr i alo n W ednesday, N ove m ber15

. The j ury w as sel ecte d on N ove m ber15 , and counsel pr es en te d o pen i ngs ta te m en ts th e ne xtda y . The e vi den

ti ar y pha se o fthe t r i ali m m edi at ely f o l l o w ed a nd c o nt i nued thro ugh M onday, N ove m ber20
. Counseldel i ver ed cl o singa r g um en ts on Tu es day, Nov embe r 2 1, a nd the case went to the j ury l ate that d ay . Th e j ury del iber ate d4 N o. 09

- 2308

o n Nov embe r 2 2 butdi d n ot reach a ve r di ct
. The ne xt day was Thanksgi vi ng, so the dist ri ct c ourtsus p ended de l ib e r a t i o ns thr o ugh th e f o l l o wi ngT ue s da y . OnWed

nesday, N ove m ber29 , a j urorwh om we w i l l r eferto as “M

. J
. ” ca l l ed i n si ck. The j ury att endance shee t forthat day hows that onlyel eve n j uror s s i gned i n and i ncl ud es a h an d w ritten n ote by th e cou rtroom de p ut y clerk statin g “M [. ] J[
. ] abs en t.” T h e j ury ad m inistrator’s diary page f or that day al so i nd i cate s that one j uror c alle d in s i c k

. H o we v e r, th e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d o c k e te n t r y f o r N o v e mber 29 stat es “[j ]ury trialheld , ” as it ha d f or every othe r day th e c ourtwas i n ses si on s i nce N ove m ber16

. On N ove m ber30 al l twel ve j uror s were i n att en d ance f ordel iber ati ons, and on that d ay the j ury re turned i ts ver dictco nvi cti ng W ebst ero n al l char ges exce pt f or the posse ssi on count. The j ud ge i m posed a sente nce of l i fe i n pr i so n, a nd we affirm ed the c o nv i ct i o ns a nd s en te n c e o n d ire c t a p p ea l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. We b ster, 151 F.3d 103 4 (7th C ir. 1998). A t som e po int afte r t h e trial, W ebst er l earn ed of M
. J. ’s ab se nce on N o ve m be r 2 9. On Oct o be r 5 , 1 99 8, the Suprem e Cour t deni ed cer ti or ar i in W ebst er ’ s di re ct appeal

. On October4 , 1 999, W ebst erfi l ed a § 22 55 ha beas pet iti on as se r t ing m ultiple groun d s for reli ef. The pe t i t i o n i nc l ud e d a n a l l e g a t i o n tha tWeb s t e r was “de ni ed th e r ight to a j ur y o f1 2 pee r s” b as ed o n the abse nce o fa j urorduri ng del iber ati ons, but w as not m o r e spe ci fi c ab o utthe l eg alb as i s f o r thi s cl ai m . The pet i ti o n d id not, f o r e xa m pl e, i nv o k e Rul e 23 ( b) o fthe Feder alRule s o fC ri m i nal Pro cedure oral l ege a vi ol ati on of the S i xth A m endm ent o r any o therco nsti tuti onalN o. 09

- 2308 5 guar antee
. W ebst erl ater am ended his peti ti on t o m ake tw o ad d itio n al claim s rela te d to th e jur or ’s a b se n c e: (1) h is tr i ala nd a pp ell at e co uns elwer e i ne ffec ti ve f o r f ai l i ng to obj ect to th e absen ce of the ju r o r a n d ( 2) the baili ff c o m m itte d a frau d on th e cou rt by instru cting th e j ury to del iber ate with o nl y e l eve n m em ber s. I n r es po ns e to the pe ti ti o n a nd i ts a m en dm en ts , the d istri ct cou r t first attem p ted to l ocat e the bail iff

— a cou rt secur i ty office r

— w ho had bee n re sponsibl e forthe safeke ep in g of W eb st er ’s jur y. Six ye ar s h a d e l ap se d (it w as no w J uly 2001 ), so th e jud ge asked th e U
. S. M arsh al’s o ffi ce t o a ss i sti n l o ca tingthe offi ce r . The c o ur t ev en tu al l y deter m i ne d tha t th e o ffi ce r was de ce as ed. The j ud ge then deci ded to se nd an invest i gat orto tr ack do wn an d i nt er vi ew the j uror s. W i th o uti nputfr o m the parti es, the j ud ge appoint ed an i nvest i gat orem p loyed by the U. S. A tto rney ’s O ffi ce forthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f Il l i noi s. The j ud ge chose thi s par ti cul ari nvest i gat or be ca use h e ha d wor k ed f o r the j udg e i n a pr ev i o us p os itio n an d th e jud ge h ad “g re at c o n f i d en c e” in “ h is ca pac i tyto do e xa ct l y whathe was t o l d t o do , no th i ng m or e a nd nothi ng l ess . ” The j ud ge i nstructed the i nvesti gat orto i nter vi ew al l the j uror s e xcep t M .J. The i nvestig at or u se d a listof qu es tio n s t h at t h e p ar tie s join tly dr a ft e d. T he i nv estigator ap p aren tly e nc ou nt ered som e d if

fi c u l t y l o c a t i n gth e j u r o r s ; th e i n t e r v i e ws w e r e n o tc o mple ted unti l 20 06. The r esul ts w er e a m ix ed b ag, to sa y the l e a s t
. T he fi r s tque st i o n wa s : “ Th e c o ur tr e c o r ds sh ow that on one da y one of the j urors d id n ot ap p ear.6 N o. 09

- 2308 Do yo u re cal l any such t im e w hen thatm i ght ha ve occurr ed?” S eve n j uror s s ai d they did notr ecal l a j uror be i ngabs en t; f o urj urors s ai d the y di d. Ofthe f o ur w ho di d rem em bera j uror ’ s absen c e, thr ee re cal l ed that an alt er n a t e ju ro r re p lac ed th e a b se n t jur or , a cla im whol l y u nsubs ta nt i at ed byc o ur t r ec o r ds. One o fthe four tho ug ht the j uror w as abs en t o n th e d ay before Thanksgi vi ng; ano thercl aim ed the j urorwas abse nt o n the fi rs t tw o days o fdel iber ati ons. T w o cor re ctl y r ecal l ed that th e ab sent j urorwas m al e; o ne sa i d the ab sent j uror w as fem ale . Th e s ec on d qu es tio n w as : “D o y o u rec all bei ng se nt hom e e ar ly b ecause o fthi s j uror ’ s absence ?” T h e j u ro rs a n sw er ed e ith er “ n o” o r th at th ey d id n otrec all. The in ve stig ato r tes ti fi ed abo ut the re sul ts ofthe j uror i n t e r v i e ws a ta n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n gh e l d i n S e p t e mber20 08. I n lie u of l i ve tes ti m ony f ro m the cour tr oo m depu tyc l er kwho ha d wor k ed o n W eb st er ’ s tr i al, the parti es st ip u l ate d that the cl er k would t est i fy a s fol l ows: ( 1) he “ ha [ d] a g en er ali nde pen den t r ec o l l ec ti o n o fthe W ebst ercas e be cause, am ong oth err eas ons, the defen dan t r ec ei ve d a l i fe i m pr i so nm en t te r m ”; ( 2) he re cal l ed bei ng noti fi ed of M
. J
. ’ s abse nce; and ( 3) ba sed on th e j ud g e ’s cu stom and prac tice, he beli eved the j ury w as sent hom e that d ay because o fthe j uror ’ s absence , al though he did notper sonal l y witness thi s happeni ng. W ebs t e r ’ s t r i a l a nd a pp e l l a t e c o un s e l a l s o t e s t i fi e d a t th e h ea rin g. T ria l co u n s el t es tifie d th at ba se d on h is experi ence appeari ng be f or e the tr i alco urt, the j ud ge w ou ld h ave m ad e a record and notifi ed cou ns e l before s e n d i n gth e j u r y h o m e e a r l y . T h e a t t o r n e y d i d n o t, h o wev er, have an ind ependent re col l ecti on o fwh etherthisN o. 09

- 2308 7 actual l y o ccurr ed. W ebst er ’ s a pp el l ate at torney te sti fi ed tha t he wa s un a wa r e o f the j ur o r ’ s a b s e nc e un ti l af ter the c oncl usi on o fW ebst er ’ s d i re ct a pp eal

. Final l y, W ebst erte sti fi ed that he was neveri nfo rm ed that a j u ro r w as a b se n t fo r a d ay d u rin g d elib er at ion s u n til s o me t i me l o nga ft e r h e wa s s e nt e nc e d. On M ar ch 20, 20 09, the dist ri ct c ourti ssued a w ri tte n deci sion r ej ecting al l o fW ebst er ’ s g ro und s forhabea s re l i ef

. Rega rdi ng the abs ent-j urorcl ai m , the j ud ge bega n by noti ng tha t “ [ t] here i s no questi on that i t is i m proper f o r e l ev enj ur o r s to de l ibe r at e i n the ab sence o fthe tw elfth j uror w h e t h e ro rn o tp r e j u d i c ec a n b es h o wn , ” ci ting gener al l y t o Araujo , 6 2 F .3d 93 0. U nited Sta tes v. Webster, N o. 99

- C-65 10, 20 09 W L 77980 6, at *3 (N

. D. I l l

. M ar . 20 , 2009 ) ( em phasi s a dd ed )

. But the j ud ge hel d that b ecause W eb st er h ad n otrais ed h i s t w elv e-p er so n j u ry cla im on d ire ct a pp ealand did notl i st i t a s a gr ound fo r re l i ef i n hi s o ri gi nal § 2255 peti ti on, the cl ai m was procedural l y def aul ted o r unti m el y. U l ti m ate l y, however, the j ud ge add re sse d the ab sentj urori ssue i n connect i on with W ebst er ’ s fra ud

- on- thecou rt claim

. W ebst er’s th eory w as th at th e b a il iff i ns t r u c t e d th e j u r o r s t o d e l ib e r a t e i n M. J
. ’ s ab s e n c e wi th

out i nfo rm i ng the tr i alj u d ge a n d thi s a m ounted to a fraud on th e cou rt. Th e j ud ge foun d the e v id en ce insu ffi ci ent t o est abl i sh that i m properdel iber ati ons had actual l y o ccurr ed. Refe rri ng to the re sul ts ofthe j uror interview s, th e j ud ge not ed th at “[n]on e of th e ju rors re cal l ed del iber at in g w i th l ess than al l o fthe j uror s. ” Id. at* 4. The j ud ge al so c i te d hi s no r m alpr ac ti ce o fs en di ng8 N o. 09

- 2308

The ha bea s pr oc ee di ngs wer e c onduc t ed by the sa m e j udge 1 w h o p r es id ed o v er W eb ste r’s tr ia l. S ee R ule 4 ofthe Ru le s Gover nin g Habea s Cor pus Cas es ( re qui ri ng h abe as m ot i ons t o be p resen ted t o the j udge who c onduc t ed the t ri al an d im p o se d th e se n te n ce ). the j ury hom e w hen a j uror i s abse nt. The j ud ge 1 thought i t u n l i kel y that the j uror s would have del ibe r at ed wi thfewe r tha n t wel ve mem be r s pr es en t because the y were acc ustom ed to “wait i ng f ora l ate j u r o r i n th e mo r n i n go r a ft e r l u n c h o r wh i l e a j u r o r o r t wo att ends to p er sonal needs. ” Id. at * 4 n.4. Be cau se th ere w as no e vi dence thatthe bai l i ffi n st ru c te d the j ury to del iber ate w ith ou t M .J. an d i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to est abl i sh thatthe j ury actual l y di d so, the j ud ge rej ecte d W ebst er’s clai m that his conv ictions w ere procur ed by a fra ud o n the cour t. The j ud ge did not add re ss W ebst er ’ s r el ate d cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce ofco unsel

. The di str i ct c ourtgr anted a c er ti fi cate o f appe al ab i l i tyo n the abs en t-j ur o r c l ai m i n i ts v ar i o us i ter ati ons.

I I . Di s c us s i o n On app ealW ebst erco ncen tr ate s o n hi s tw el ve- perso n j ury cl ai m and the re l ate d c laim t h at tr i alco unselwas i neffec tive f orf ai l i ng to o bj ect to the c onti nuati on o f d e l i b e r a t i o n s i n th e ab s e n c e o fth e t w e l fth j u r o r . He has dro pp ed hi s fra ud

- on-t he- cour t theor y. W e r evi ew the di str i ct c ou rt ’s deni alo f§ 2255 r el i efunder a du alN o. 09

- 2308 9
stan d ard of review ; w e acce p t t h e d istri ct cou rt’s fi ndi ng s o ff ac t unl es s th eya r e cl ea r l y e r r o ne ous a nd re vi ew l ega l questi ons de novo

. Sa nd o va l v. U nited Sta tes , 57 4 F .3d 84 7, 85 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) . A fac tu al fin d in g is cl ea r l y er r o ne o us when “the r ev i ewi ng co ur t o n the entire ev id ence i s l eft with the defini te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en co m m i tte d.” U nited S ta tes v. M cGraw , 57 1 F.3d 62 4, 62 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( i nter nal qu otation m arks om itted ). A s a n i ni ti alm att er, W ebst erco ntends thatthe dist ri ct cour t was wrong to concl u d e th at hi s tw el ve- perso n j u r y c l a i m w a s pr o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d o r u n t i me l y . We agr ee. The j ud ge hel d that W ebst erco uld have r ai sed thi s cl ai m on dir ect appeal because the tria l dock et “cl ear l y s how ed the abse nce ofthe j urorand cl ear l y s tat ed th at th e jur y d elib er at ed .” W ebster, 20 09 W L 7 79 806, at * 3
. Thi s o v e r s t a t e s th e c l a r i t y o fth e d o c k e te n t r i e s . On N ove m ber29 , the day the j urorwas abse nt, the d oc ket sta tes o nl y “ [j ] ury tr i alhel d,” the sam e g ener i c dock et en try tha t appe ar s f o r the f o urda y s o fthe t r i alpr ec eding del iber ati ons. The phras e “ [j ] ury tr i alh eld ” a pp ear s t o be a r outi ne docke t e ntry ; i t doe s no t c ap ture speci fi c o r un ex p e c ted tri al events , and i t w as u sed on allcou rt days duri ng the tr i alfro m o pening sta tem ents thro ugh the v er dict

. The actual ev i dence o f M

. J
. ’ s absence appe ar ed o nl y o n the j ur ya tt en dan ce s he eta nd i n the j ury adm i ni str ato r’ s di ar y, nei ther o f w hi ch w er e par t o f th e tri alr eco rd. A ccor dingl y, we cannot f aul t W ebst er for failin g to ra ise th is claim on d ir e c t a p p ea l. See U nite d State s v. R osari o , 23 4 F
. 3d 34 7, 35 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)10 N o. 09

- 2308 ( cl ai m s r equi r i ng“ dev el op m en t o ff ac ts o ut si de th e re c or d

. . . are m or e p ro p er ly p re se n te d in a § 22 55 p et ition”). The dis tr i ct c ou rt als o f ound that W ebst erhad not pr es en te d hi s twe l ve - per so n j ur y c l ai m a s a g r o und f or hab e a s r e l i e f i n hi s o r i g i na l § 2 2 5 5 pe t i t i o n a nd r ai sed it on ly l ate r w hen he fi l ed an am endm ent t o the pet iti on. The co urt hel d that the cl ai m w as new , di d not r el ate bac k t o any i ssue i n th e o ri gi nalpeti ti on, and ther efor e w as eit h e r p r o c ed u ra lly d efa u lte d or u n tim ely . Th is ruling overlooks the fifth claim f o r rel iefi n W ebst er’s or i gi nal § 2255 pet i ti on, wh i ch ass er ted thatW ebst er “w as denie d the r i ght t o a j ury of12 peer s” and fur ther expla i ned that “one ofth e j uror s was abs ent duri ng an enti re day o fd elibe ra ti ons. ” Thi s i s s uffi ci ent t o prese rv e th e t w elv e-p er so n j u ry arg u m en t. A c c or d in gly , th e c laim w as nei therpro cedural l y def aul ted norunti m el y. So w e proc eed to the m e r it s . Th e Si xt h A m en d m en t’s guar antee o ftr i albyj ury i n cr i m i nal pro secuti on s d oes n otinc lu d e t h e rig h t t o a j u ry of tw elv e. Wi l l i am s v. Flo rida , 39 9 U .S. 78 , 98-1 00 (19 70 ); A raujo , 62 F. 3d at 933. H owever, Rule 23 ( b) o fthe Fe d er alRule s o fCri m i nal Pro cedure “i ncor pora tes thatve nerable com m on l aw tr adit i on a s a r equi re m ent,” with l i m i ted exce pti ons f or c on tin ge n c ies aris in g a fte r tr ial h as be g u n . A raujo , 62 F. 3d at 933. The r ule pro vi des, i n pert i nent par t: ( b) J urySiz e (1) In G en eral. A j ur y c o ns i st s of 12 pe r so ns unle ss thi s r ule pro vi des o ther w i se.N o. 09

- 2308 11 (2) S t i p u l a t ion for a S m alle r Ju ry. Ata n y t i me be fo r e th e verd ict, the p arties m ay, w ith th e cou rt’s approval, st i pu l ate i n w ri ti ng tha t: (A ) the j ury m ay consi st offew erthan 12 perso ns; o r (B) a j ury of few er than 12 p e r s ons m ay retu rn a ve rdi ct i fthe cour t fi nd s i t nec ess ar y t o excuse a j urorf orgo od cause aftertr i albeg i ns. (3) C ou rt O rd er for a Ju r y o f 11 . A fter the j ury ha s retired to d eliberat e, th e cou rt m ay p erm it a j ury of11 per sons to re turn a v er d i ct, ev en witho ut a sti pu l ati on bythe parti es, if the c ourtfi nd s g oo d cau se to exc us e a j uror. F ED . R. C RIM . P. 23
. W ebst er ’ s cl ai m f or§ 2255 r el i efi s ba sed pri m ar i l y o n Rule 2 3 ( b ) , tho ugh he a l s o c o nt e nd s tha t the c l a i m has “c on s t itu tio n al d im en sio n s” be c au se it im p lica te s h is Six th A m en d m en t rig h t t o a u n a n i m o u s v er d ict
. See Apodac a v. O r egon , 40 6 U .S. 40 4 (1 97 2); Johns on v. Lo ui s i ana , 4 0 6 U .S . 356 (19 72 ); i d. , 40 6 U.S

. 36 6, 36 9- 70 ( Pow el l, J ., c on c u rrin g); A nd res v. U nited Sta tes , 333 U
. S. 74 0, 74 8 ( 1 9 4 8 )

. T he c o ns t i t ut i o na l a r g ume nt i s no twe l l

- de v e l o pe d; and ofco urse , the ver dicther e was un an im ou s, so the re i s n o u n a n i mi t y p r o b l e m. W e b s t e r ’ s R ul e 2 3 ( b ) a r g ume nts uffe r s fr o m a s i mil ar l ack off actualf oundati on. Rule 23 ge neral l y r equi re s a tw el ve- p erson j ury but per m i ts the par ti es to sti pu l ate “[a ]t any ti m e be f or e the ve rdi ct” that “the j ury m ay consi st offew erthan 12 perso ns, ” o r that “a j ury offew er12 N o. 09

- 2308
tha n 1 2 p e r s o ns ma y r e t urn a v e r di ct” i fth e c o ur tfi nd s i t nec ess ar y t o “excuse a j urorf orgo od cause aftertr i al begins. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P
. 23 ( b) ( 2)

. The r ule al so provi des th at“ ev enwi th o uta s ti pul at i o n b y the pa r ti es , ” th e c ou rtm ay , “[a]f te r th e jur y h as ret ire d to d el i b e r a te ,” perm i t “ a jur y of11 per sons to ret urn a ve rdic t
. . . i fthe cour t fi nd s g oo d cause t o excuse a j u ror. ” Id. 23(b) ( 3) (em p h as is a d d ed ). H er e, n o jur or w as ex c u se d . A n d in r ej ec tingW eb st er ’ s fr au d- o n- th e- co ur t ar g um en t, the d istri ct cou rt found ins uffici en t proof tha t the j ury actual l y del iber ate d on N ove m ber29 , the d ay M
. J
. cal l ed i n si ck. U nl ess thi s find i ng is cle ar l y err oneo us, Rule 23 ( b) i s no t i m pli cate d because W ebster ’s j ury neverhad few erthan tw el ve m em ber s. T h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fa c tu al fin d in g w as n otcle ar ly er ro neous. The ev i dence atthe § 2 255 h ea rin g w as at best am b iguous. A s we have note d, al though the docke t en tr y f o r N ov em b er 29 st at es “[j]u ry tria l he ld ,” th is ro uti ne ent ryi s uni nfo rm at ive; i t doe s no t t end to prove ordi spro ve that the j u ryactual l y del iber ate d that day

. T he j uror inter v ie w s d o not ad d m uc h. W ebst er correctly observe s tha t in som e resp ects the j u d g e ap p ears to ha ve mis i nt er p re te d the r es ul ts o fthe i nt er vi ew. The j ud ge deter m i ned that “[ n]o ne o f t he j uror s r ecal l ed d e l i b er at in g w ith les s t h an all of th e jur or s.” We b s ter, 2009 W L 77980 6, at * 4. But the i nvest i gat ordi d not a sk thi s pre ci se questi on. I nstea d, afterexpl ai ni ng to ea ch j urorthatco urt re cor ds showed thato ne j urorhad bee n a b s e ntdur i ngde l ib e r a t i o ns , the i nv e s t i g a t o r a s k e d: “ Do yo u rec all b e i n gs e n th o mee ar l y b e cau se of this j uror’s abse nce?” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) The j uror s a nsw er ed “no” orN o. 09

- 2308 13

To be sur e, the ne xtque s t i on was : “I fye s [ you r ec al l be i ng 2 s en t hom e] , d o y o u r e c a l l i f, p r i o r t o th e t i me th e j u r y wa s s e nt hom e ear ly, the re were deliber a tio n s w ith res pect t o the verdi c t ? ” Th e n ot e s f orthi s q ue s t i ons t a t e “N / A ” o r “ DNA” (pre sum ab ly, “D id N ot A sk” ) for ev ery juro r. Th is m ak es sense bec aus e the q u es t i on as s um es anaffi rm at i ve ans wer t o the pre vi ous que s t i on, butno ne ofthe j u r o r s r e s p o n de d ac c or di ngl y. I n ad d i t i on, j ur or “E. G. ” t ol d the i nve s t i gat or that an abs en t j uro r “w as pre s en tf or the del iber at i ons . . . . [ N ] o o ne wa s m i s s i n g f o r th o s e d e l ib e r a t i o n s . ” L a t e r , h o we v e r , E
. G. contradic ted him se lfby stat ing t h a t he “[ d]oes not r em em ber” being se nt hom e ear ly because ofthe absentj uror. d id n ot recall. Th e “no ” a n s w e r s w ou ld ten d to sup p ort W ebst er’s p ositi on, an d th e “d o not recall” an sw e r s are a was h. 2 R egard less ofthis m isun d erstan d ing, how ever , w e are ske pti calthatthe j urori nter vi ew s ca n be c on si dered at al l

. I n the fi rs t pl ace, under Rul e 6 06(b) o fthe Federal Rules of E vidence, the j uror s’ r esponse s t o the invest i gato r ’ s que st i o ns wer e i na dm i ss ibl e ( m o r e ab o utthis i n a m om ent)

. M or eov er, the j uror s’ r esponse s were ri dd l ed w ith in c on sis te n c ies an d im ag in ar y occ u rre n c es , h a r d ly su rp risi ng gi ven the p assa ge of tim e. T h a t th e interview s occu rred m ore tha n a d ecad e a fter W ebst er’s tr i aland s o obvi ousl y c ontr adic ted the r eco rd m ake s i t u n sa fe t o re l y o n them atal l ( pu tting as i de the question of th eir ad m issibil ity). W eb st era l so b as es his c lai m o n the abs en ce o fc o ncre te evi dence abo ut wh at the c ourtdi d i n re sponse to M
. J
. ’ s phone c al l o n N ove m ber29
. W ebs te r argues that14 N o. 09

- 2308 be ca us e th e co ur t r ec o r d do es no t co nfi r m tha t th e j u d g e s e n t th e j u r y h o me a ft e r M. J
. c a l l e d i n s i ck, we shoul d i nfe r that i t di d not happen. H e no tes that28 U .S.C . § 75 3(b ) req u ire s t h e c ou rtto k e ep a re c or d of “a ll pr o ce eding s i n c r i m inal ca se s ha d i n o penc o ur t” a nd al so po i nt s to hi s tr i alc o uns el ’ s te st i m o ny tha t th e j ud ge w ou ld h ave m ad e a record before send in g t h e j ury hom e a fter o n e ofi ts m em ber s ca l l ed i n si ck. A l though the l ack ofa re cor d i s unset tl i ng, i t doe s no t pr ovide a suffi ci ent b asi s t o up set the dist ri ct cour t’ s f actualfi nd i ng. I n the e nd, the j udg e’ s fi ndi ngr es te d h eavi l y o n the co ur t’ s no r m alpr ac ti ce o fdi smi ss i ng the j ur yf o r the daywhena jur o r i s ab se nt
. The j udg e no te d tha t th e “und i sputed .

. . prac ti ce in m y c ourt ro om , and thos e o f a l l o th e r s i n th i s c o u r t ho us e , i s t o s e n d j u r o r s h o me w h en th e j u ry is in c om p let e in a cri m i n a l ca se .” Id. In add i t i o n, the p a r t i e s s t i pu l a t e d tha tthe c o ur t r o om de p u ty cl er k, wh o had w or ked f orthe j ud ge si nce 19 87, w oul d confi rm the cour t’ s pra cti ce i fcal l ed to te sti fy. B e c au se no ev iden ce su ggeste d that the cu stom ary pract ice w as not f ol l owed , the j ud ge f ound that W ebst erhad “notpro ved” tha t the j ury del iber ate d on N ovem ber 29 w ithou t the tw elfth j uror. The m ostthatcan b e sai d about thi s e vi dence i s that it is in c on c lu siv e. “W h er e t h er e a re tw o p er m iss i b le vi ew s o fthe evi dence, the f actfi nd er ’ s cho i ce b etween them cannotbe cl ear l y e rr on eous. ” M cGraw , 57 1 F

. 3d at 629 ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). I n thi s situati on, i t was ent i r e l y r e a s o nab l e f o r the t r i a l j ud g e t o g i v e de c i s i ve w ei gh tt o h i s r e g ul a r c o ur t r o o m pr a c t i c e . T he j ur o r s’N o. 09

- 2308 15

Ot he r c i r c ui ts ha ve a l s o t r e a t e d c on vi c t i on s r e t ur ne d b y 3 el even-m em ber j uries und er s im il ar c ir cum st ances as (co n tin u ed ...) spo tty r ec o l l ec ti o ns o f th e de ca de- o l d e ve nt s o fthe tr i al

— eve n ass um i ng the i r adm i ssibi l i ty

— ar e too u n re liab le a n d h ar d ly s u fficie n t t o d isp lac e t h e re as on ab le i nfer en ce a r i singfr o m the c o urt’s n o r m alpr ac ti ce . The abs e nc e o fa f o r malr e c o r d i s t r o ub l i ng, b utn o teno ugh to co nv i nc e us th at th e j udg e’ s “n o t pr o ve n” f ind in g w as cl ear l y e rr oneo us. Befo re co n c lu d i ng, we have a few words ofcauti on ab ou t t h e d i s t ric t c ou rt ’s t re at m en t o f ou r d ec isio n in A raujo

. T he j ud g e r e a d A raujo a s ho l di ngtha t “[ t] he re i s no qu e s t i o n tha t i t i s i mpr o pe r f o r e l e v e n j ur o rs to d eliberat e in the ab sen ce of the tw elfth j uror whe t he r orno t p r e j u d i c e c a n b es ho wn , ” a n d fu r th e r th a t“ [ i ] fi ti s s h o wn th ate le ve n mem be r s o fthe j ur y de l ibe r at ed, the n the j ud gm ent has to be vacat ed. ” Webster, 20 09 W L 77980 6, at *3 (e m p h as is a d d ed ). A raujo di d not e stabl i sh such a br oad r ule

. I n that case , the tr i alco urt pe r m anentl y dism isseda j urorduri ng del iber ati ons, and an el eve n-m em berj ury retur ned a g uil ty ver dictag ai nst th e d efe n d an t. A raujo , 62 F. 3d at 9 32
. Because the t ri al j udg e ha d f ai l ed to a r ti cu late g o o d c au se f o r e xc us i ng the jur or as r equi re d by Rul e 2 3( b) ( 3) , we vacat ed th e co nv i ct i o n a nd r emande d f o r a ne w tr i alwi th o ute xa mi n i n gwh e th e r th e d e fe n d a n twa s p r ej u d i c e d b y t he j u ro r’s ab se n c e. Id. at 93 7
. In es se n c e, w ith ou t s p ec ifica lly add re ssi ng the m att er, we tr eat ed the Rule 23(b) ( 3) er ro r as st ru c tu ra l. 316 N o. 09

- 2308

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 str u ct u ra l e rr o rs . E.g. , U n i te d S tat es v. G i n yard , 444 F. 3d 648, 651- 5 5 (D .C . C ir . 20 0 6 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . C u rb elo , 343 F. 3d 273, 280 (4 th C ir . 20 0 3 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Spe nce, 16 3 F .3d 128 0, 128 4 (11th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Tabacca , 9 2 4 F. 2 d 9 0 6 , 9 1 5 ( 9 th Cir

. 1 9 9 1 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Tayl or, 49 8 F .2d 39 0 , 39 1 -9 2 (6t h C ir . 19 7 4 ). T h is fa ct u a l fin d in g al so re so lv es W eb ste r’s c la im o f in ef- 4 fective assistance of cou nsel. B eca u se the jury d id no t d elib era te onthe d ay M
. J
. wa s a bs e nt, W e bs t e r ’ s c ou ns e l c a nn oth a ve been ineff ect ive f or f ail ing t o rai se the m att er. H ere, in con trast, al l tw elve m em be r s of th e j ury re t u rn ed W eb st er ’s v er d ict
. A raujo d oe s n otsp ea k t o t h is situat ion, an d t h e r e is reason to dou bt th at a j uror’s tem pora ryabs ence f ro m del iber ati ons i s a st ructur al er ro r im m u n e from h ar m les s-e rro r re vie w . Se e, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Sh ac ke l

f ord , 7 77 F.2d 11 41, 1144-45 (6th C ir. 1985 ) ( affi rm i ng co nvi cti on wh er e j urorat tended to a p erson al m atter for a few m inu tes d uring de liber a t io ns ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cam ac ho , 8 6 5 F
. S up p. 1 5 2 7, 15 3 4 , 1 5 3 7( S

. D. Fl a. 19 94) ( affi rm i ng co nv ict i on wh er e j urorm ay have been i n the bathr oo m duri ng del iber ati ons)

. W e need not deci de the m att erher e. T he di str i ct c ourtf ound as a m att ero ff act th at t he j ury did notdel iber ate o n th e d ay M .J. w as ab se n t, an d th is fin d in g is n otcle ar ly er ro neous. 4 Fi nal l y, w e re turn to the questi on of the adm i ssibi l i ty ofthe i nvest i gat or ’ s int er vi ew s w i th the j uror s. Rule 60 6( b) ofthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence pro hibi ts j uror s fro m tes ti fyi ng ab outN o. 09

- 2308 17 any m att ero r sta tem ent occurr i ng duri ng the co urse o fthe j ur y ’ s del ibe r at i o ns o r t o the e ffec t o fa ny th in g up on t h at o r any o therj uror ’ s m i nd o r em oti ons as i nfl uenci ng the j urorto as sent to or di sse nt fro m th e verd ict or ind ictm en t or conc ernin g the j u r or’s m en ta l pr o ce ss es i n c o nne ct i o n the r ewi th

. F ED . R. E V ID . 6 0 6 ( b )

. T he r ule h as thr e e l i mi t e d e xc e pti o ns . J ur o r s m ayt es ti fy abo ut : “ ( 1) w hethe r e xt r an eo us pr ej udi ci ali nf o r m at i o n was i m pr o per l y b r o ug ht to the j ury’ s a tte nti on, ( 2) wh etherany outsi de i nfl uence w as i m proper l y b ro ught t o bearupon any j uror, o r ( 3) wh etherthere w as a m i sta ke i n ente ring the ve rdi ct onto the verd i ct for m . ” Id. Rul e 60 6(b) c o di fi es the co m m o n- l aw pr o hibi ti o n a g ains t us i ng j ur o r t es ti m o ny to i m pea cha v er di ct, whi che xi st s to pr o m o te the fi na l i tyo fv er di ct s, pr o te ctj ur o rs fro m ha r as sment, a nd e n c o u r a g e fu l l a n d f r a n kd i s c u s s i o n i n th e j u r y r o o m. See Ta nn er v. U nited Sta tes , 483 U
. S. 107, 119-21 (1987 ). H er e, th e i nv es ti g at o r que st i o ne d the j ur o r s ab o ut “mat te r [ s]
. . . o cc ur r i ngdur i ngthe c o ur se o fthe j ur y’s d eliberat ions,” so ad m itti ng the con ten ts of the intervi ews pl ainl y v i o l at ed Rul e 6 06 ( b)

. At o r ala r g um en t W eb st er ’s co u n se l arg u ed th at R u le 6 06 (b ) w as n otim p licate d because the i nter vi ew s were l i m i ted to “hi sto ri cal o bj e c t i v e f act”

— thati s, whethe r a j ur o r was abs en t dur i ngde l ibe r at i o ns , no t whetherthe abs en ce i nfl ue nc ed the j ury’s d e c ision. Bu t as the district cou rt its elf a c kn ow led ge d , th e q u es tio n s “ d id n otfall w ith in the a m bi t o ff acts to wh i ch a j urorm ay tes ti fy under18 N o. 09

- 2308

The di s t ri c tc our tj us t i fi ed adm i t t i ng th e i nt er vi ews bas ed o n 5 an unsup ported ass ert ion that c ourts are given “ ex cep ti onal p ro ce d u ra l le ew a y . . . w h en fra u d o n th e c o u rt is a lle g ed .” U n i te d S tat es v. Webste r, N o. 99-C -651 0, 200 9 W L 779 80 6, at *2 n .2 (N .D . Ill. M a r. 2 0 , 20 0 9 ).

12- 19- 11 R u le 6 06 (b ).” Webster, 2 0 0 9 WL 7 7 9 8 0 6 , a t* 2 n . 2
. I nd e e d, 5 th e S upr eme Co ur t no te d i n Ta nn er that Congress enacte d the S enat e ve rsi on o fRule 60 6( b) , wh i ch unli ke th e H o us e ve r si o n, doe s no t per m i t j ur o r t es ti m o ny about “obj ecti ve m att ers” o ccurr i ng duri ng del iber ations— inclu d in g i nq uiries i nt o w he th er a j uror p artic ip at ed in d elib er at ion s. Ta nn er, 48 3 U.S

. at12 3-25 ( not in g speci fi cal l y that the S enate Repor t di sapprove d of in q u iries int o w h et h er “jur or s d id n o t ta ke p ar t in d elib er at ion s” ). A t le as t o n e d ist ric t c ou rth as ex p licit ly h eld th at qu es tio n in g jur or s a b ou t w h et h er on e o f th eir numb er was t empor ar i l y abs en t dur i ngde l ibe r at i o ns vio lat es R u le 6 06 (b ). Se eCam ac ho , 86 5 F
. S upp. a t 15 37
. The sam e i s t rue here ; adm i tting the co n te n ts of the j uror interview s w as error. F o r the f o r eg o i ngr easo ns , a nd wi thr es er va ti o ns note d, w e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.