T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; nevert hel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10t h C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r1,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 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, N os . 06- 7009 and 06- 7010 v . (E . D . o f O k la .) J ERRY LEE GRI ST,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . C R - 05- 64- 01- W H and T P - 0 5 - 0 3 - WH)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** A j ur yfound D efe ndant - A ppel l antJ err yL ee G r i s tgui l t yon t w o count s of pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. D ur i ng voi rdi r e, t he di s t r i ctcour ti nadvert ent l ym i s s t at ed the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e i n a cr i m i nal t r i al as one of gui l t . T he courtpr om pt l ycorr ect ed the mi s s t at ement and l at er ques t i oned ea ch pr os pect i ve j ur oraboutt he pr operpr es um pt i on i n a cr i m i nal-2-

t r i al . D efe ndantcont ends t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s err orw as i ncur abl e and a m i s t r i al s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n te d . W e d is a g re e a n d A F F IR M . I . Backg r ound O n J ul y12, 2005, J ames Lee G r i s tw as i ndi ct ed i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof O k lah o m a o n tw o c o u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n o f

a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te . D ur i ng j ur ys el ect i on fort r i al , t he di s t r i ctcour tj udge as ked a pot ent i al j ur or , “A nd y ou coul d pr es um e [the defendant ] gui l t yas t he l aw r equi r es y ou t o?” A pl t . A pp. , at18. R ecogni zi ng hi s m i s t ake, t he j udge qui ckl ycorr ect ed the m i s s t at ement w hi l e not i ng t he i m por t ance of t he pr operpr es um pt i on i n a cr i m i nal tr ia l. T h e d e fe n d a n t im m e d ia te ly m o v e d fo r m is tr ia l. T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . T h e ju d g e late r a sk e d e a c h o f th e tw e n ty -e ig h t p o ten tial ju ro rs in d iv id u a llyto s t at e the pr operpr es um pt i on i n a cr i m i nal cas e. E ach j ur orr es ponded thatt he d e fe n d a n t w a s in n o c e n t u n til p ro v e n g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he j ur yfound G r i s tgui l t yon bot h count s of t he i ndi ct m ent . O n J anuary9, 2 0 0 6 , h e w a s s e n ten c e d to 2 1 0 m o n th s fo r C o u n t I a n d 2 4 0 m o n th s fo r C o u n t II to be s er ved conc ur r ent l yand as s es s ed $200. 00. G r i s tfi l ed thi s appea l char gi ng t he j udge’ s m i s s t at ement w as an i ncur abl e vi ol at i on of hi s due pr oces s r i ght s and that a m is tr ia l s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n te d . I I . D i s cus s i on A . P res um pt i on of

I nnocence-3-

“J ur yi ns t ruct i ons m us tbe exa m i ned as a w hol e and a de novo s t andar d of re v iew is a p p lied to d e ter m in e th e p ro p rie tyo f a n in d iv id u a l ju ryin stru c tio n to w hi ch obj ect i on w as m ade a tt he t i m e of tr i al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Scar bor ough , 128 F. 3d 1373, 1377 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Mul l i ns , 4 F. 3d 8 9 8 , 9 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). T o rev erse a low er c o u rtjud g m en t, an ap p ell ate c o u rt m us thave a “s ubs t ant i al doubtt hatt he j ur yw as fai r l ygui ded. ” Id. A sin g le i ns t ruct i on m aynotbe j udged i n i s ol at i on, but“mustbe cons i der ed i n t he cont ext of the i ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e and the tr i al r ecor d. ” Est el l e v. McG uir e , 50 2 U. S. 6 2 , 7 2 (1 9 9 1 ). “The C ons t i tut i on guar ant ees a defendanta fa i rt r i al , nota per fec tone. ” Unit ed S t ates v. McHorse , 179 F. 3d 889, 904 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mi t chel tr ee , 9 4 0 F .2 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 )); s ee als o R os e v. C l ark , 478 U . S. 570, 579 ( 1986) . A m om ent arym i s t ake doe s noti nval i dat e an ent i r e tr i al as a mat t erof cour s e. “[N ] otal l i m pr opercomm ent s r equi r e a ne w t r i al orr ever s al on appea l . I ti s onl yw hen a r emar k coul d have i nfl uence d t he j ur y ' s ver di ctand the tr i al cour tfai l ed t o t ake a ppr opr i at e s t eps t o r emove i tfr om t he j ur y ' s cons i der at i on t hatt her e i s r ever s i bl e err or . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Ke n da ll , 766 F. 2d 1426, 1440 ( 10t h C i r . 1985) . I n ot herw or ds , w her e a j udge t akes s t eps th a t cu re th e e rro r, th e trial m a yg o fo rw a rd w ith o u t fe a r o f re v e rsa l o n a p p e llate r e v i e w . A n a l yz i n g w h e t h e ra n e r r o rh a s b e e n s u ffi c i e n t l y c u r e d i s n e c e s s a r i l y a fa c t- b a s e d e x e rc is e .-4-

G r i s tcont ends t hatt he fol l ow i ng excha nge betw een the di s t r i ctcour tj udge and a pot ent i al j ur orcons t i tut ed an i ncur abl e, pr ej udi ci al j ur yi ns t ruct i on:

T H E C O U R T : O kay . Y ou can l i sten t o w hat everevi dence t he D efe ndantw i l l puton? [ JU R O R ]: R ig h t. T H E C O U R T : A nd y ou coul d pr es um e hi m gui l t y as t he l aw r e q u i r e s yo u t o ? I ’ m s o r r y. [ JU R O R ]: In n o c e n t. T H E C O U R T : I apol og i ze. I apol og i ze. E xcu se m e, m a’am , j ust a mi nut e. I m ade a m i s t ake a nd I need t o cl eart hatup. I under s t and y ou’ r e l aughi ng and I l augh atm ym i s t ake, too , b u t t hati s a bad m i s t ake I m ade. T he D efe ndanti s pr es um ed i nnocentunt i l pr oven gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubtand l ett her e be no doubti n anyof y o u r m in d s th a t’ s w h a t I m e a n t to s a y . . . A pl t . A pp. , at18–19. T he di s t r i ctcour tj udge i m m edi at el yr ecogni zed i t s s l i p of t he t ongue and pr om pt l yi s s ued a c ur at i ve i ns t ruct i on t hatl eftno doubtof the pr oper p re su m p tio n in a c rim in a l trial. T h e c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n a lo n e w a s s u fficie n t to c u re th e m is ta k e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al es , 5 8 F . 3 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (“im m ed iat e c u rati v e ins tru cti o n b ythe c o u rt ” c o u ld rem ed yp rose cu tor’s s lip o f th e to n g u e re g a rd in g b u rd e n s in c ri m in a l c a s e ). B utt he di s t r i ctcour tw entfur t hert o cur e the err orbyas ki ng eac h ind ividu al j u ror to state the ap p rop ri ate p resu m p ti o n . A ll tw en ty -eigh t j u rors corr ect l yans w er ed i nnocentunt i l pr oven gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T he co u rtfu rt h er rem ind ed the ju ryo f th e p rop er p resu m p ti o n o f in n o ce n ce b efo re s w e a ri n g th e m in a s w e ll a s in th e fin a l ju ry in s tr u c tio n s b e fo re d e lib e ra tio n .A s i n Walkerv. G i bs on , w e do notneed t o addr es s t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof 1 t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s err or , beca us e w e do notfi nd t he err ors t ructur al . 228 F. 3d at 1 2 3 5

– 3 6 . -5- T her e ca n be l i t t l e doubt , l etal one the “s ubs t ant i al doubt ” r equi r ed t o r ever s e, that the ju ryw as fairl yg u ided o n the m att er. T h e o n lyw a yth e d istric t co u rt e rro r h e re c o u ld p ro v e in c u ra b le is if it w er e s t ructur al err or . St ructur al err oroccur s w hen the ent i r e tr i al fr amew or k or p ro c e ss is u n d e rm in e d b yth e e rro r so th a t a d e fe n d a n t h a s b e e n d e p riv e d o f b a sic p ro te c tio n s in d e te rm in in g g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e . Walkerv. G i bs on , 228 F. 3d 1217, 1 2 3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds , Nei l lv. G i bs on , 278 F. 3d 1044 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . W hen a de fenda nthas been a ffor ded couns el and an i m par t i al adj udi cat or , t her e i s a s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hats t ructur al err orhas not o c c u rr e d . Un itedS ta tes v . D o w lin , 408 F. 3d 647, 668 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ; see also R ose , 478 U . S. at 579. “[T] he det er m i nat i on of w hetheran err ori s s t ructur al 1 depends on notonl yt he r i ghtvi ol at ed, butal s o t he ‘ natur e, cont ext , and s i gni fi canc e of the vi ol at i on. ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P ears on , 203 F. 3d 1243, 1261 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng Yar bor ough v. Keane , 1 0 1 F . 3 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 7 (2d C ir . 1996) ) . A s l ong as t he err ori n t he ca s e di d notaffectt he composi t i on of the r ecor d, s o t hat“a r evi ew i ng cour tcan f i nd t hatt he r ecor d devel oped att r i al es t abl i s hes gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t he i nt er es ti n fai r nes s has been s at i s fi ed and the j udgm ents houl d be affi r m ed. ” R ose , 478 U . S. at579, 579 n. 7.-6-

T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s s lip o f th e to n g u e d id n o t c o n s titu te s tr u c tu ra l e rr o r. In h is b ri e f, a p p e lla n t a d m its th e ju d g e ’s m is s ta te m e n t w a s u n in te n tio n a l. N ow her e does t he appe l l antques t i on t he j udge’ s i m par t i al i t yatt r i al . T he m iss tate m e n t co n stitu ted n o m o re th a n a n in sig n ifica n t v e rb a l h icc u p . P lac e d in t he cont extof the s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s , t her e i s no r eas on t o concl ude that t he mi s s t at ement affect ed the composi t i on of t he over al l t r i al r ecor d. T he c u ra tiv e e ffo rts o f

th e d istric t co u rt w e re lau d a b le a n d m o re th a n su fficie n t to re m e d yits fle e tin g e rr o r. B . M ot i on for M i s t ri al “[M ] ot i ons form i s t r i al . . . cal l foran exa m i nat i on of t he pr ej udi ci al i m pact o f a n erro r or e rrors w h en v iew ed in the co n text o f a n en ti re c ase . T h is co u rt r evi ew s t he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng on s uch mot i ons underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G abaldon , 9 1 F . 3 d 9 1 , 9 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). G r i s tcont ends t hatt he page s of t he di s t r i ctcour tt r ans cr i ptcannotconvey t he fe el i ng of t he court r oom . H e ar gues t hatt he j udge’ s effor t s t o cur e the err or byques t i oni ng eac h of t he tw enty - ei ghtj ur or s on t he pr operpr es um pt i on “t ook on t he appe ar ance of a ga m e oran i ns i de j oke” s o t hat“the i m por t ance of t he iss u e h a d fa d e d .” A p lt. B rie f, at 7 . T a k e n in th is lig h t, th e a p p e llan t b e liev e s h is r eques tform i s t r i al s houl d have be en gr ant ed. T h e a p p e llan t is c o rre c t in h is c o n ten tio n th a t w e a re n o t in a p o sitio n to j u d g e t h e fe e l i n g o f

t h e c o u r t r o o m b yt h e tr a n s c r i p t . I ti s p r e c i s e l yb e c a u s e we-7-

ar e noti n a pos i t i on t o as s es s cour t r oom emot i on t hatm ot i ons form i s t r i al re q u ir e a n “ a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n ” s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . See 5 W ayne R . L aFave e t al . , C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e § 27. 5( e) ( 2d ed. 1999) . T he tr i al j udge i s i n a bett er p o sitio n to d e ter m in e th e fe e l o f th e c o u rtro o m a n d w h e th e r a m istria l is w arr ant ed. H er e, w e have no bas i s i n t he r ecor d t o concl ude the cur at i ve s t at ement s w er e i neffect i ve, nordoes t he pas s age of t i m e betw een the m i sst at em ent and t he jur or col l oq uyregar ding t he b urden o f proo f sugg est ot herw i s e. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he mot i on fo r m istria l. C . P robat i on A tt he t i m e of hi s i ndi ct m ent , G r i s tw as on s uper vi s ed r el eas e foran ear l i erdrug cons pi r acyconvi ct i on. G r i s t ’ s pos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance and comm i s s i on of a c r i m e vi ol at ed the t er m s of hi s s uper vi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma t r ans ferr ed j ur i s di ct i on of t he ea r l i erdrug convi ct i on t o t he East ern D i s t r i ct , w her e G r i s t ’ s pr obat i on offi cer fi l ed a pe t i t i on forpr obat i on act i on bas ed on G r i s t ’ s vi ol at i on of the s uper vi s ed r el eas e. T he s ame dayt hatG r i s tw as s ent ence d fort he cha r ges above, t he d istri ct co u rtrev o k ed the s u p erv ised release , ad d ing 3 7 m o n ths to G ri st’ s s ent ence . G r i s tappea l s r evoca t i on of t hatr el eas e bas ed s ol el yon t he cha l l enges pr es ent ed above . A s w e have r ej ect ed thos e gr ounds , w e affi r m t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s r evoca t i on of appe l l ant ’ s s uper vi s ed r el eas e.-8- I I I . C oncl usi on B as ed on the for egoi ng r eas ons w e fi nd t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s err ordur i ng v o ir d ire c u re d , it s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n fo r m istria l w ith in its d isc re tio n , an d its r evoca t i on of appe l l ant ’ s s uper vi s ed r el eas e pr oper . T her efor e, w e A FFIRM on al l cou nts . E n tered fo r t h e C o u rt T i m ot hyM . T y m kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge