UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD

Gordon Reid

O R D E R

Gordon Reid has filed a motion to supplement the record, a

motion for a nondisclosure order, and a motion to speak to

jurors. The court addresses these motions as follows.

1. Motion to Supplement the Record

Before the first trial, Reid claimed that he was being

prosecuted on the Hobbs Act charge because of his race. He

sought discovery related to a claim of selective prosecution. On

January 13, 2006, the court denied Reid’s requests for discovery

because he had failed to make the necessary showing. See Order,

1/13/2006, doc. no. 60 (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517

U.S. 456, 468 (1996)). 

In support of the opposition to Reid’s discovery requests,

the government provided an Assistant United States Attorney’s

affidavit contradicting Reid’s selective prosecution theory,

which among other things showed that similar charges had been

brought against non-African-American defendants. The court noted

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 4
2

that a quick review of the court’s docket for some of the cases

listed by the government supported the government’s

representation.

Five months later, Reid asks the court to “produce for the

record any and all information relied upon by this court in

arriving at the within referenced conclusion(s).” The materials

submitted by the government in support of its opposition to

Reid’s motions are sufficient. No supplementation of the record

is necessary or appropriate. 

2. Motion for Nondisclosure Order

Reid acknowledges that the court previously granted his

motion to have all witnesses sequestered from the courtroom until

they have testified and are discharged. That order directed the

government and standby counsel to instruct all witnesses that a

sequestration order is in effect and that they are not to discuss

their testimony with other witnesses. Reid now asks the court to

prohibit the government from “relaying to any lay witness the

testimony of any expert witness, or other lay witness, in whole

or part, whether directly or indirectly.” The government

responds that “[u]ndersigned counsel understands the intention of

a sequestration order, and as officers of the Court, will not

disclose any witness’ testimony to any other witness.”

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 4
3

No additional order on the issue of witness sequestration is

necessary. However, to avoid any misunderstanding, the order

issued on March 28, 2006, prohibits counsel, parties, and their

representatives in this case from conveying the testimony of any

witness to another witness who will testify at trial.

3. Motion to Speak to Jurors

Reid moves for leave, through a representative, to speak to

any of the jurors from the first trial who would consent to do

so. He maintains that because the first trial ended in a hung

jury, any input from the jurors who served on the first jury

would help in his preparation for the second trial. The

government opposes Reid’s motion on the ground that the

extraordinary circumstances necessary for such communication do

not exist in this case.

The government correctly points out that the local rules of

this district and First Circuit precedent prohibit counsel,

parties, or their representatives from communicating with former

jurors absent extraordinary circumstances and a sufficient

showing of good cause. See LR 47.3; Dall v. Coffin, 970 F.2d

964, 971 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Kepreos, 759 F.2d 961,

967 (1st Cir. 1985). Reid’s asserted need for input from the

former jurors in this case does not approximate the extraordinary

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 4
4

circumstances that might justify such contact. See, e.g., United

States v. Houston, 205 F. Supp. 2d 856, 869 n.12 (W.D. Tenn.

2002). In addition, at the time the mistrial was declared, with

the consent of the parties, the court asked the foreperson of the 

jury what the split was. The foreperson responded that there

were eleven jurors in favor of a guilty verdict and one juror in

favor of a not guilty verdict. This provides the defendant with

sufficient information to assist him in preparing his case.

Therefore, the motion is denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to

supplement (document no. 314), motion for a nondisclosure order

(document no. 316), and motion to speak to jurors (document no.

317) are denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 27, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esquire

Clyde R. W. Garrigan, Esquire

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

U.S. Probation

U.S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 4