2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-20-2005 

# U SA v . S mith P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4152

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S mith" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 815. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/815NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 03- 4152

____________ UN I TE D STAT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. LARRY SMI TH, Appellant

____________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E astern D istri ct of D elaw are D . C . N o. : 03- cr - 00356- 1 D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

____________ S u b m itted o n M o ti o n U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

J ul y12, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , M cK E E , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y20, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udge. L arr ySm i th w as tr i ed t o a j uryi n the U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ct of Penns y l vani a and c onvi ct ed of one countof r obberyi n vi ol at i on of the H obbs A ct , 18T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d Sm i th t o 88 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm enton countone 1 ( Ho b b s Ac tr o b b e r y ) a n d o n c o u n tth r e e ( a t t e mp t e d c a r j a c k i n g ) , t o ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y . On cou nt tw o (brandis hing a fir earm ), the D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced S m i th to 84 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o run cons ecut i vel yw i th hi s s ent ence on count s one and thr ee. O n count fou r ( brandis hing a fir earm ), the D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced S m i th to 300 m on ths’ im p ri s o n m e n t, to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly w ith h is s e n te n c e o n c o u n ts o n e , tw o , a n d th re e . 2 U . S. C . § 1951, one countof att empt ed ca r j acki ng i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2119, and tw o count s of br andi s hi ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence under18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . Sm i th m oved fora new tr i al pur s uantt o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 33, al l egi ng p rose cu tori al an d juro r m isco n d u ct. A fter an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed Sm i th’ s R ul e 33 mot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed on Sm i th a $400 as s es s m ent and $1, 000 fi ne, and s ent ence d hi m t o a t ot al of 472 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be 1 f o llo w e d b y5 y e a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . O n appea l , Sm i th ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s R ul e 33 mot i on fora new tr i al . Sm i th al s o r ai s es s ent enci ng cl ai m s underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. - - - - , 125 S. C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e af

fi r m Sm i th’ s convi ct i on, butvaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand for re se n ten c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith B o o k e r. B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e p a rties , the ir c o u n se l, an d th e D istric t C o u rt, w e b rie f lyse t f o rth o n lyth e sa lien t f

a c ts le a d in g to S m ith ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I. Sm i th’ s al l egat i ons of j ur orand pr os ecut or i al m i s conducts t em from an extr aj udi ci al i nt er act i on betw een one of the j ur or s i n hi s cas e and a n A s s i s t antU ni t edA U SA Z auzmerbr i efl ydi s cus s ed a l egal i s s ue pert ai ni ng t o Sm i th’ s cas e w i th t he 2 pr os ecut i ng att orney , pr i ort o t he tr i al . A U SA Z auzmerneverappea r ed i n Sm i th’ s cas e. 3 St a t e s A t t orne yfo rthe Eas t e rn Di s tr i c tof Pe nn s y l va ni a , Robe r tZau z mer( “ A U SA Zau z mer ” ) , w ho w a s no ti nv ol ve d i n the pr os e c ut i on of hi s c a s e . Thi s j ur ora nd A U SA

2 Z a u z m e r w e re a c q u a in tan c e s o f ten y e a rs w h o h a d b o th b e lo n g e d to , an d re g u lar ly a tte n d e d s e rv ic e s a t, th e s a m e s yn a g o g u e . T he fi r s tdayof j urydel i ber at i ons i n Sm i th’ s cas e occ urr ed on a Fr i day . T hat eveni ng, the j ur orand A U SA Z auzmerw er e att endi ng s ervi ces atthei rs ynagogue. T he j ur orappr oache d A U SA Z auzmerand t ol d hi m thathe w as s i t t i ng on a fe der al j uryi n a c r i mi na l c a s e be fo r e J ud ge Robr e no . The j ur ori de nt i fi e d the pr os e c ut or , A U SA Fi t zger al d, and ment i oned thatthe j uryw as del i ber at i ng. I m m edi at el y , A U SA Z auzmer demanded t hatthe j ur or“getaw ay ” fr om hi m , and ende d the conve r s at i on. L at erthat e v e n in g , the ju ro r a p p ro a c h e d A U S A Z a u z m e r’s w if e , co n v e y e d th e sa m e in f o rm a tio n to h e r a b o u t h is ju ry se rv ic e , a n d jo k in g ly re m a rk e d th a t Z a u z m e r h a d b e e n “ m e a n to [ h im ],” byr efus i ng t o s peak w i th hi m . A U SA Z auzmer ’ s w i fe a dvi s ed the j ur orthathe “be t t er n o t ta lk ” w ith h e r h u s b a n d , a n d h e d id n o t. A U SA Z auzmerdi d notadvi s e the D i s tr i ctC our t , Sm i th’ s defe ns e couns el , ort he pr os ecut oraboutthi s i nt er act i on. O n the fol l ow i ng M onday , Sm i th’ s j uryr es um ed d e lib e ra tio n s a n d re a c h e d a v e rd ict, f in d in g S m ith g u iltyo n a ll co u n ts, b u t ac q u itt in g h is co- defe ndantbr otheron al l count s . A ft erthe tr i al , as A U SA Fi t zger al d w as l eavi ng t he c o u rt h o u s e , th e ju ro r a p p ro a c h e d h e r a n d b e g a n to m a k e “ s m a ll ta lk ” a b o u t th e tr ia l.4

E ventual l y , couns el forSm i th’ s co- defe ndantj oi ned i n the conve r s at i on, aft erw hi ch poi nt the j ur orm ent i oned thathe had metA U SA Z auzmeron the pr ece di ng Fr i dayeveni ng and h a d to ld Z a u z m e r t h a t h e w a s s e rv in g o n a ju ry in a f e d e ra l c ri m in a l tr ia l. Sm i th m oved fora new tr i al underR ul e 33, al l egi ng pr os ecut or i al and j ur or m isc o n d u c t. S m ith a rg u e d th a t A U S A Z a u z m e r e n g a g e d in m isc o n d u c t b yf a ili n g to br i ng hi s i nt er act i on w i th t he j ur ort o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s att ent i on, and thatthe j ur or f la g ra n tly d is re g a rd e d th e C o u rt ’s re p e a te d in s tru c tio n s th a t ju ro rs n o t d is c u s s th e c a s e . T h e D istri ct C o u rth eld a n ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , d u ri n g w h ich th e juro r, A U S A Z au zm er, and A U SA Fi t zger al d t es t i fi ed. T he j ur ort es t i fi ed thathe had no i nt ent i on of di s cus s i ng the ca s e w i th A U SA Z auzmer , and thathe w as s i m pl yengagi ng i n “s oci al chi t chat ” by m e n tio n in g th a t h e w a s c u rre n tlyse rv in g o n a ju ry . T h e ju ro r a lso tes tifie d th a t h is fee l i ngs w er e “s l i ght l yhur t ” w hen A U SA Z auzmerr efus ed t o s peak w i th hi m , butthathe w as noti nfl uence d bythi s i nt er act i on. I n a ca r eful opi ni on, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe br i ef i nt er act i on betw een the j ur orand A U SA Z auzmeri nvol ved no mi s conduct . Fur ther , as s um i ng ar guendo thatthe j ur orhad vi ol at ed the C our t ’ s or dernott o di s cus s the ca s e w i th any one, the C our tfound thatSm i th had s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce. T he C our tfound cr edi bl e the j uror’ s t est i m on ythat he r em ai ned i m part i al throug ho ut the d el i berat i on s. T he C ou rtal so d e ter m in e d th a t “a h yp o th e tica l av e ra g e ju ro r” w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n in f lu e n c e d b yth is lim ite d e x tr a

ju d ic ia l c o n ta c t w ith A U S A Z a u z m e r.5

W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of Sm i th’ s R ul e 33 mot i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. J as i n, 280 F. 3d 355, 360 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he di s cr et i on thatfede r al tr i al court s exer ci s e i n addr es s i ng al l egat i ons of j ur orand pr os ecut or i al m is c o n d u c t “ e x te n d s to th e d e te rm in a tio n o f w h e th e r p re

ju d ic e h a s b e e n d e m o n s tr a te d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R e s k o , 3 F .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 9 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A l t hough t he j ur or ’ s att empt t o engage A U SA Z auzmeri n conver s at i on w as im p ru d e n t, A U S A Z a u z m e r r e s p o n d e d a p p ro p ri a te ly b yte rm in a tin g it im m e d ia te ly. T her e i s no bas i s forr ej ect i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thatthe j ur orr emai ned i m part i al , and thatSm i th s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof thi s fl eet i ng i nt er act i on betw een the j ur orand A U SA Z auzmer . Sm i th’ s theorythatthe j ur or , aft erhavi ng been r ebuff ed byA U SA Z auzmer , att empt ed t o curryfavorw i th the pr os ecut i on byhel pi ng t he ju ry re tu rn a g u ilty v e rd ic t, is u n d e rm in e d b yth e ju ry’s a c q u itta l o f S m ith ’s c o -d e f

e n d a n t. Forthi s and otherr eas ons di s cus s ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n i t s opi ni on, i ti s appar entt hat S m ith su f

f e re d n o p re

ju d ice . T h u s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g S m ith ’s R u le 3 3 m o tio n f o r a n e w trial. II. Smi th c ha l l e ng e s hi s s e nt e nc e un de rU ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. - - - - , 12 5 S. C t. 73 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d .2 d 6 2 1 (2 0 0 5 ). H e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p e rm iss ib ly enhanc ed hi s s ent ence bas ed on fi ndi ngs r el at i ng t o hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons and the val ue of the v eh icl e tha t he a tt em p ted to ca rj ac k . W e se e n o erro r w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s6

s ent enci ng enhanc ementbas ed on Sm i th’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons . See U ni t ed St at es v. O r daz, 3 9 8 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 -4 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). N o t o n lyh a s th e S u p re m e C o u rt “ sp e c if ica lly exempt ed pr i orconvi ct i ons fr om i t s hol di ng” i n A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , s ee O r daz, 398 F. 3d at240, butj udi ci al not i ce of a fi nal pr i orconvi ct i on does not r e q u i r e th e t a k i n g o f

a n y e v i d e n c e o rt e s t i m o n y f o ra d m i s s i o n t o a j u ry. As f o rS mi th ’ s c h a l l e n g e t o th e e n h a n c e me n tb a s e d o n th e v e h i c l e ’ s v a l u e , we thi nk thi s s ent enci ng i s s ue w i l l bes tbe det erm i ned i n the fi r s ti ns t ance bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt u p o n o u r r e m a n d f o r r e s e n te n c in g u n d e r B o o k e r. S m ith ’s s e n ten c e is h e re w ith v a c a ted a n d h is c a se is re m a n d e d f o r re se n ten c in g in ac co rda n ce w ith B o o k er.