I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CT - 0 0 1 6 2 - S CT J I M M I E ROACH a

/ k / a J I M M I E C. ROACH a / k / a J I M M Y ROACH v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 16/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S . M AL CO L M O. HAR RI S ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AN E E. TUC KER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: LAURA HOG AN TEDDER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 20/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J i m m i e R oach f

i l ed a m ot i on f

or pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef cl ai m i ng he w as ent i t l ed t o a n e w trial b a s e d o n n e w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e th a t d u rin g h is tria l a ju ro r w a s e x p o se d to extr aneous i nf

or m at i on s uppl i ed by l aw enf or cem ent pers onnel i nvol ved i n the ca s e. T he m ot i on w as deni ed. R oach appeal ed, and the C our tof A ppeal s af

f i r m ed. R oach f

i l ed a pet i t i on f orw r i tof

cert i or ar i , w hi ch the C our tgr ant ed.

F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory

### 2

¶ 2 . In 2 0 0 4 , J im m ie R o a c h w a s c o n v icte d b y a ju ry in th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ct , of pos s es s i on of

coca i ne and pos s es s i on of hydr om orphon e. R oach w as s ubj ectt o enhance d sent enci ng underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 41-29- 147 and 99- 19- 8 1 a s a s u b s e q u e n t d ru g o ff e n d e r a n d h a b itu a l o ff

e n d e r, r e s p e c tiv e ly . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 41- 29- 147 (Rev. 2009); 99-19- 81 ( R ev. 2007) . H e w as s ent ence d t o f or ty- ei ghtyear s on the coc ai ne- pos s es s i on char ge and s i xty year s on the hydr om orphone- pos s es s i on char ge, t he s ent ence s t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons. R oach appeal ed, and the C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed and r emanded f ora new tr ia l o n a s e a rc h w a rr a n t is s u e . R o a c h v. S ta te , 7 So. 3d 932, 933 ( ¶ 1) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e S tat e fil ed a p eti ti o n for w ri t of ce rt iorari, w h ich w as g ran ted; th e C o u rt re in s ta te d a n d a ff

ir m e d th e tria l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . R o a c h v. S ta te , 7 S o . 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 2 8 (¶ 4 2 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). ¶ 3 . In M a y 2 0 1 0 , R o a c h filed a n a p p lica tio n fo r p e rm is s io n to f ile a m o tio n fo r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f i n t h e t ri a l c o u rt . W e g ra n te d R o a c h ’s a p p lic a tio n , a n d h e fi le d , pro se , a m o tio n fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f o n S e p te m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 . R o a c h a s s e rt e d , in tera lia , thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al bas ed on new l y di s cover ed evi dence . H e cl ai m ed thata j ur orhad b e e n e x p o se d to e x tra n e o u s in fo rm a tio n su p p lied b y law en fo rc e m e n t pe rso n n e l d u rin g h is tr i al . R oach s ubm i t t ed t he aff i davi tof J ur orD err i ck Tat e, i n w hi ch Tat e expl ai ned that du ri ng R oach ’s tri al he h ad ap proach ed tw o p oli ce o ff i cers , w ho w ere the S t at e’s w i tnesses, an d ask ed them h o w m u ch ti m e R o ac h w o u ld g et i f he w as fo u n d gu il ty. A cc o rdin g to T ate’s a ffid a v it, th e o ffic e rs r e p lied th a t R o a c h w o u ld g e t fiv e to e ig h t y e a rs . T h e a ffid a v it p ro v id e d , “ A s a re s u lt o f b e in g s o a d v is e d [,] I v o te d g u ilty [.]”

### 3

¶4. A hear i ng on R oach’ s m ot i on f or pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef t ook pl ace on D ece m ber15, 2010. R oach’ s br other , Pr es t on Roach, t es t i f i ed atthe hear i ng that , a f t erthe t ri al and sen tenc ing , h e w as stan d ing o u tsi d e the co u rth o u se w ith fam il y m em b ers d iscu ssing R o ac h ’s s ent ence w hen Tat e appr oache d. T at e j oi ned the conve r s at i on and made a s t at ementthathe had hea r d the s ent ence w oul d notbe more than f i ve t o ei ghtyear s . Pr es t on t es t i f i ed thathe m ent i oned Tat e’ s s t at ementt o R oach’ s ap pe l l a t e a tt orney s om e t i m e betw een 2004 a nd 2006, w h ile R o a c h ’s a p p e a l w a s o n g o in g . T a te ’s a ff id a v it w a s p ro c u re d M a rc h 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 . ¶5. T at e pr ovi ded t es t i m ony at the hear i ng i ncons i s t ent w i th hi s af f i davi t . T at e t es t i f

i ed thathe di d notapproach the of f i cer s i ni t i al l y, r ather , the of f i cer s w er e t al ki ng among themsel ves and he ove r hear d them say i f R oach w as convi ct ed he w oul d g etfi ve t o ei ght y ea rs. A t th at po int, T ate turn ed to the m an d ask ed , “F ive to eigh t yea rs?” T h e o ffi ce rs r es ponded, “Y es . ” Tat e t est i fi ed t hathe di d nott el l any otherj ur or s aboutthe al l eged conver s at i on, butthati tw as pos s i bl e thatotherj ur or s overhear d i tbecause he w as nott he o n ly o n e in th e h a ll. ¶ 6 . T a t e ’ s a f

f i d a v i t i d e n t i f

i e d Of f i c e r s R. W . S p o o n e r a n d S h a n n o n Bu l l o c k a s t h e t wo of f i cer s he spoke w i th i n t he hal l . D ur i ng the hea r i ng, T at e s ai d he di d noteven r ecogni ze thos e names and thathe di d notsuppl y t he of f i cer s ’ nam es t o t he i nves t i gat orw ho pr epar ed the a ffi d av it . T h e inv esti g ator d e ter m in e d fro m the tri al co u rtrec o rd w h ich o ffi ce rs w ere c a lled a s w itn e ss e s a t th e trial, a n d h e in se rte d th o se n a m e s in the aff id a v it w h e n h e ty p e d it fo r T a te. T a te a d m itt e d th a t h e d id n o t re a d th e a ffid a v it b e fo re h e sig n e d it. ¶7. S po o n er, a li eu tena n t w ith the H ind s C ou nty Sh eri ff’s D epart m ent, t est i fi ed as a w i tnes s fort he St at e dur i ng R oach’ s t r i al . H e al s o t es t i f i ed atthe hea r i ng on R oach’ s m ot i on

### 4

for p o st- co n v ict ion rel ief. S p o o n er t esti fi ed th at he co u ld no t rec all discu ssing R o a c h ’s pos s i bl e s ent ence w i th anotherof f i ceri n the hal l w ay dur i ng t he t r i al . Fur ther , Spooners t at ed thathe w oul d nothave s pecul at ed thatR oach’s s ent ence w oul d be betw een f i ve and e i ght year s beca us e he w as aw ar e of the amountof

nar cot i cs f

ound w i th R oach a nd he knew R oach had turned d ow n a p l ea off er of tw enty years. ¶8. A tthe hea r i ng, Tat e w as a s ked m ul t i pl e t i m es by hi s a t t orney, the St at e’ s att orney, and the j udge w hetherthe i nf or m at i on f

r om the of

f i cer s af f ect ed hi s ver di ct . T at e’ s r es pons e w as di f f er enteac h t i m e. H i s af

f i davi ti ndi cat ed t hathe had vot ed gui l ty bas ed on bei ng advi s ed th a t R o a c h w o u ld g e t o n ly fiv e to e ig h t y e a rs, a n d a t th e h e a rin g , h is te stim o n y in iti a lly s uppor t ed the ver aci ty of hi s af f i davi t . A tanotherp oint , he t es t i f i ed thatthe i nf

or m at i on “may have” i nf

l uence d hi s de ci s i on. L at er , he s ai d thathi s deci s i on w as “mai nl y bas ed” on the evi dence , then l at er , thatthe i nf or m at i on “had s om e i nf l uence ” on hi s deci s i on. T hen he test if ied th at he w o u ld h av e fo u n d R o ac h g u il ty ev en w ith o u t hea ri n g the s p ec u lat ion o f a f i ve - t o- e i gh t - ye a rs e nt e nc e , a nd tha th e “ de r i ve d tha t[ Roac h] was g ui l ty” b a s e d on the t es t i m ony and t he evi dence . H e sa i d seve r al t i m es t hathe “f el tt hat[ R oach] w as gui l ty” but h e fe lt th a t f

iv e to e ig h t y e a rs w a s a “ fa irs e n te n c e .” ¶9. A t the cl ose of the hear i ng, the ci r cui t j udge s t at ed that T at e had r es ponded t o eac h ques t i onerw i th w hatthatper s on w ant ed t o hear . T he j udge conc l uded thathe coul d not cons i derT at e’ s t es t i m ony beca us e i tw as i ncons i s t ent . T he j udge hel d thatR oach ha d f ai l ed t o pr es ents uf

f i ci entf act s upon w hi ch r el i ef

coul d be gr ant ed, and he de ni ed R oach’ s m ot i on for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef.

### 5

¶1 0 . R o a c h a p p ea led o n the n ew ly d isco v ere d ev iden ce issue , an d the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ff ir m e d . R o a c h v. S ta te , __ S o . 3 d __ , 2 0 1 2 W L 2 3 0 5 3 7 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . Ju n e 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 ). T he C our tof

A ppeal s not ed the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng thatT at e had gi ven atl eas tf i ve di f f er ent ver s i ons of

w hatha ppened w i th the tw o of f i cer s a nd thatTat e had t ai l or ed hi s s t ory t o “w hat the as ki ng party w ant ed t o hear . ” I d. at*2 ( ¶ 8) . O n t hatbasi s , t he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound th e iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. I d. J udge C ar l t on di s s ent ed and di s cus s ed the i s s ue of ex tr an eo u s info rm ati o n rec eive d b y a juro r. T h e m ajority d id n o t add ress Ju d g e C arlt o n ’s d is s e n t. ¶11. J udge C ar l t on expl ai ned thatT at e’ s t es t i m ony w as cons i s t enti n r egar d t o hear i ng the ex tr an eo us i nform at i on fr om l aw enforcem ent of fi cers , and the “co ntr adict i on ” i n T at e’s test im o n y p ertaine d o n ly to w h ethe r he ap p roa ch ed the o ffi ce rs fi rsto r w h ethe r he o v erh ea rd th e o ff ic e rs d is c u s s in g th e s e n te n c e . I d. at*3 ( ¶¶ 12, 1 4) ( C ar l t on, J . , di s s ent i ng) . J udge C ar l t on f

ound t hatt he r ecor d s uppor t ed “a thr es hol d s how i ng of r ece i ptof

extr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf

or m at i on by a j ur or . ” I d. at*4 ( ¶ 15) . T her ef

or e, s he w oul d have r emanded the ca s e f orf ur therevi dent i ary hear i ng a nd t o f ul l y r econve ne the j ury “t o det erm i ne i f ot her j ur or s w er e expos ed t o t he i nf or m at i on r egar di ng R oach’ s s ent ence and, i f s o, i f i tw as r eas onabl y pos s i bl e thatthe i nf or m at i on i m pact ed the ver di ct . ” I d. at ** 4 , 7 (¶¶ 1 5 , 1 8 ). ¶12. T he C our tof

A ppeal s den i ed R oach ’s m ot i on f orr ehea r i ng. R oach t i m el y f i l ed a pet i t i on f

orw r i tof

cert i or ar i , w hi ch the C our tgr ant ed. R oach a s s ert s thatthe C our tof A ppeal s err ed i n af

f i rm i ng the tr i al court“f orthe r eas ons s t at ed i n the di s s entby [ J udge] C a rl to n .” H e a ss e rts th a t th e c a se sh o u ld b e re m a n d e d “ fo r a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g to

### 6

det erm i ne w hetheri tw as r eas onabl y pos s i bl e thatt he extr aneous comm uni cat i on t es t i f i ed to b y D e rr ic k T a te a lte re d th e v e rd ic t.” D i s cus s i on ¶13. T he onl y i s s ue on appe al i s w hetherR oach w as ent i t l ed t o pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef bas ed on new l y di s cover ed evi dence thata mem berof the j ury w as expos ed t o extr aneous i nf or m at i on. T o w arr antr el i ef on the gr ound of

“new l y di s cover ed evi dence , ” the pet i t i oner m us tpr ove thatthe evi dence “ w i l l pr obabl y pr oduce a di f f er entr es ul tori nduce a di f f er ent ver di ct , i f

a new tr i al i s gr ant ed. ” Cra w fo rdv. S ta te , 867 So. 2d 196, 204 ( ¶ 9) ( M i s s . 2003) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itte d ). T h e in sta n t m a tter d o e s n o t p re se n t a tru e c a se o f “ n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence , ” bec aus e the “e vi dence ” ati s s ue – thata j ur orhear d an of f i cers ay R oach c oul d getf

i ve t o ei ghtyear s i f

convi ct ed – w oul d nothave be en i ntr oduced a s evi dence att r i al and does notgo t o the w ei ghtors uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence agai ns tR oach. B as ed l ar gel y on J udge C ar l t on’ s di s s ent , R oach’ s cl ai m has m orphed i nt o a cl ai m thatt he trial c o u rt in c o rre c tly h a n d led the a lleg e d e x tra n e o u s c o m m u n ica tio n w ith a ju ro r, w h ich is how w e w i l l addr es s the i s s ue. ¶1 4 . “P o st- co n v ict io n p ro c e e d in g s a re fo r th e p u rp o se o f bring ing to the tr ial co u rt ’s att ent i on f

act s notknow n a tthe t i m e of j udgm ent . ” W

illia m s v . S ta te , 669 So. 2d 44, 52 ( M i s s . 1 99 6) ( ci t i ng S m ith v. S ta te , 477 So. 2d 191 ( M i s s . 1985) ) . T he Pos t - C onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef

A ctpr ovi des f

orl i m i t ed r evi ew of

“ thos e m att er s w hi ch i n pr act i cal r eal i ty, coul d notor s houl d nothave been r ai s ed attr i al oron di r ectappea l . ” Wil lia ms , 669 So. 2d at52 ( ci t i ng Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 5 9 0 S o . 2 d 8 7 1 ( M is s . 1 9 9 1 )) . See al s o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 3 9 -3(2 ) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ).

### 7

¶15. T he bur den of

pr oof “i s on the pe t i t i on er t o show ‘by a p reponder ance of the evi dence ’ thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . ” D o ss v . S ta te , 19 So. 3d 690, 694 ( ¶ 5) ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 23( 7) ( R ev. 2007) ) . In r evi ew i ng a t r i al court ’ s deci s i on t o deny a pe t i t i on f

or po st -convi ct i on r el i ef , w e gi ve “de f

er ence t o the ci r cui tj udge as t he

‘ s ol e a utho r i ty f

ord e t e r mi ni ng c r e di bi l i ty of the wi tne s s e s . ’ ” D oss , 1 9 S o. 3d at694 ( ¶ 5) ( quot i ng Mu ll

ins v . R a tclif

f , 515 So. 2d 1183, 1189 ( M i s s . 1987) ) . “A tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al of a mot i on f

orp os t - c on vi c t i on r e l i e f wi l l n otb e r e ve r s e d a bs e nta f i nd i ng tha tt he t r i al court ’ s de ci s i on w as c l ear l y e r r oneous . ” J a c kso n v. S ta te , 67 S o. 3d 72 5, 73 0 (¶ 16 ) ( M i ss. 2011) ( ci t i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 731 So. 2d 595, 598 ( ¶ 6) ( M i s s . 1999) ) . I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the tr i al j ud ge found thatthe w i tnes s l acke d cr edi bi l i ty and di s count ed hi s t es t i m ony. W ith o u t th at t esti m o n y , the tri al j u d g e fo u n d n o g o o d c au se ex ist ed to b eli ev e tha t th e jury w as expos ed t o extr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf or m at i on ort o w arr antopeni ng an i nves t i gat i on. W he t he r R oa c h m ade a pr i m a f ac i e c as e of

e xt r ane ous i nf

l ue nc e on t he ju ry su ch th a t the trial co u rt w a s re q u ired to r ec o n v en e th e ju ry to det erm i ne w het her i t w as reas onabl y poss i bl e t hat t he i nf or m at i on al t ere d th e v er d ict. ¶16. I n hi s pe t i t i on f

orcert i or ar i , R oach a s s ert s thatthe C our tof A ppeal s err ed i n af

f i r m i ng the tr i al court“f

orthe r eas ons s t at ed i n the di s s entby [ J udge] Car l t on, ” and he as s ert s t hat the ca s e s houl d be r emanded “f oran evi dent i ary he ari ng t o det erm i ne w hetheri tw as r eas onabl y pos s i bl e thatthe extr aneous comm uni cat i on t es t i f i ed t o by D err i ck Tat e al t er ed the ver di ct . ” W e r ecogni ze a “gene r al r el uctance” to r econve ne and que s t i on j ur or s “f or pot ent i al i ns t ance s of

bi as , mi s conduct [ , ] ore xtr aneous i nf l uence s ” af

t era ve r di cthas been re a c h e d , a n d s u c h in q u ir ie s s h o u ld n o t b e e n te rt a in e d w h e re it is a “ m e re fi s h in g e x p e d itio n .”

### 8

G ladney v. Clarks dale B eve r age Co. , I nc. , 625 So. 2d 407, 418 ( M i s s . 1993) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W e a ls o re c o g n iz e th a t “ [p ]u b lic p o lic y re q u ir e s a fi n a lity to litig a tio n .” P a yton v. S tate , 8 97 S o. 2d 921, 955 ( ¶ 135) ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Ma rtin v. S ta te , 732 So. 2 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 )) . ¶17. T he need f

or f i nal i ty notw i ths t andi ng, the C our t has es t abl i s hed a pr ocedur e f ort r i al j udges t o empl oy w hen al l egat i ons of j ur orm i s con ductorextr aneous i nf or m at i on ar i s e. G ladney , 625 So. 2d at418. W hen t he t r i al courti s m ade a w ar e of pot ent i al j ur orm i s conduct o r i m p rop er i n fl u en ce on th e jury , th e fi rstst ep i s t o de term ine w h ethe r an inv estig a tio n is
w a rr a n te d . I

d. A n in v e stig a tio n is w a rra n ted if th e trial ju d g e fin d s th a t “g o o d c a u se e x ists t o bel i eve thatther e w as i n f actan i m pr operout s i de i nf l uence orextr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nform at i on . ” I

d. a t4 19 . I f

the tr i a l c ou r td e t e r mi ne s the r e i s n o “ thr e s ho l d s ho w i ng of e x te rn a l in fl u e n c e s ,” th e in q u ir y s to p s th e re . I d . See al s o P ayton , 8 9 7 S o . 2 d at 95 4 (¶ 1 3 5 ). I f the tr i al j udge has “ good c aus e t o be l i eve” ther e w as i m pr operi nf l uence on the j ury, t he c o u rt s h o u ld c o n d u c t a p o s t- tr ia l h e a ri n g . G ladney , 6 2 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 9 . T h e se c o n d ste p is t o det e r mi ne w he the rthe c omm un i c a t i on w a s made a nd the na tur e of the c omm un i c a t i on. I d. F i nall y, i f the invest i gati on reveal s that the co m m un i cat i on w as m ade, the co urtm ust d e te rm in e w h e th e r it w a s r e a s o n a b ly p o s s ib le th a t t h e c o m m u n ic a tio n a lte re d th e v e rd ic t. I d. A . T ri al c our t and o ppos i ng c ouns e l s houl d be m ade awar e of pot e nt i al j uror m i s conduct as expedi t i ousl y as poss i bl e. ¶18. A s a pr el i m i nary mat t er , w e not e that“the tr i al courtand oppos i ng couns el m us tbe m ade a w ar e of

any pot ent i al j ur orm i s conductw hen thi s e vi dence i s m ani f es t ed. ” G ladney , 6 2 5 S o . 2 d at 41 8 . “[I] f a juro r ap p roa ch es a n att o rne y for o n e o f th e p arti es o r th e c o u rt

### 9

i t s e l f , ori f e i the rs ub s e qu e nt l y l e a r ns s uc h thr ou gh a l t e rna t i ve mea ns , a l l pa r t i e s i nv ol ve d s ho ul d be mad e a w a r e o f the a l l e ga t i on a s e xp e di t i ou s l y a s p os s i bl e. ” I d. T he al l eged i nci dentoccurr ed dur i ng R oach’ s tr i al on Sept ember30, 2004. P r es t on R oach t es t i f i ed that the f i r s tm ent i on o f the i nci dentoccurr ed i m m edi at el y af t erthe tr i al and s ent enci ng, w hen T a te a p p ro a c h e d R o a c h ’s f a m ily o u tsid e th e c o u rth o u se . P re s to n te stifie d th a t h e to ld couns el aboutT at e’ s s t at ementbet w een 2004 and 2006, w hi l e the di r ectappea l w as ongoi ng. T at e’ s af f i davi tw as notobt ai ned unt i l M ar ch 31, 2010. R oach’ s m ot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on re lie f w a s fi le d o n S e p te m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 , n e a rl y s ix y e a rs a ft e r h is tr ia l. ¶ 1 9 . In a re c e n t c a se b e fo re th e C o u rt, th e ju ry v e rd ict w a s re tu rn e d o n J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 9 , a j ur or ’ s af

f i da vi td i s c l os i ng p ot e nt i a l j ur ormi s c on du c twas t a ke n on J un e 5 , 2 00 9, a nd a m o tio n n o tif

y in g th e c o u rt o f t h e m is c o n d u c t w a s fi le d o n J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 . Mer chant v. Fo r e s t Fa mil y Pr a c ti c e Clin i c, P. A. , 67 So. 3 d 74 7, 753 n. 9 ( M i s s . 2011) . A l though t he t i m el i ness of the m oti on w as not an i ssue o n ap peal, w e t oo k the opp ortun i ty to advis e couns el thatthe courtand oppos i ng couns el s houl d be made aw ar e of pot ent i al j ur or m i s conductw hen the evi dence i s m ani f es t ed, i m pl yi ng thatnot i f yi ng the courtof

j ur or m i s conducts even da ys af t er the j ur or ’ s af

f i davi tw as t aken w as not“as expedi t i ous l y as pos s i bl e. ” I

d . ( quot i ng G ladney , 6 2 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 8 ). ¶20. G i ven Pr es t on’ s t es t i m ony that he knew of the al l eged i nci dent i m m edi at el y af t ert he tr i al and thathe i nf

or m ed R oach’ s counse l aboutthe al l eged i nci dentw hi l e the di r ectappea l w as ongoi ng, the St at e and the ci rcui tco urtw er e not“made aw ar e of the al l egat i on as expedi t i ous l y as pos s i bl e. ” G ladney , 625 So. 2d at418. I tw oul d nothave be en err orf ort he tr i al cour tt o di s m i s s the i s s ue f orf ai l ur e t o not i fy t he courtw hen evi dence of the al l eged

### 10

m i s conductm ani f

es t ed. H ow ever , t o ens ur e R oach hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o an i m par t i al ju r y , th e tr ia l ju d g e c o n s id e re d th e is s u e . See M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 6 . L ik e w ise , w e w ill r evi ew the mer i t s of

the i s s ue her e. B . R oach di d not prove t hat t here w as g oo d cau s e t o bel i eve t he j ury r e c e i ve d e xt r ane ous i nf or m at i on o r was i m pr ope r l y i nf l ue nc e d. ¶21. “I n any tr i al ther e i s i ni t i al l y a pr es um pt i on of j ury i m part i al i ty. ” Ca rrv. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 99 1, 10 05 ( ¶ 3 8) ( M i s s . 20 04 ) ( qu ot i ng U n itedS tates v. O ’K

ee fe , 722 F. 2d 1175, 1179 (5 th Ci r . 19 83 ) ) . To w a r r a nta n i nv e s t i ga t i on , the pa r ty c on t e nd i ng mi s c on duc t o cc u rred “m u st m ak e an a d eq u ate sh o w ing to o v erc o m e the p resu m p ti o n in this st ate o f j u ry i m part i al i ty. ” G ladney , 625 So. 2d at418. T he C our thas hel d: A t th e v e ry m in im u m , itm u st b e sh o w n th a t th e re is s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to concl ud e tha tgo od c a us e e xi s t s t o b e l i e ve tha tthe r e w a s i n f a c ta n i mpr ope r out s i de i nf

l uence or ext ra neous pr ej udi ci al i nf or m at i on. . . . A l though a m i ni m al s t andar d of

a good caus e s how i ng of s peci f i c i ns t ance s of

m i s conduct i s acc ept able, the p ref

erabl e show i ng shou l d clear l y s ubs t ant i at e thata s peci f i c, non- s pecul at i ve i m pr opr i ety has occurr ed. I d. ¶22. T he evi dence i n the i ns t antcas e r egar di ng the al l eged c onver s at i on betw een Tat e and the of f i cer s i s notoverw hel m i ng. T at e t es t i f i ed thathe di d notr ecogni ze the names of t he of f i cer s i dent i f

i ed i n hi s af

f i davi t , and he a dm i t t ed thathe di d notsuppl y t he of f i cer s ’ names to the inv esti g ator. T h e inv esti g ator test if ied th at he d eterm ined from the tri al co u rtrec o rd w h ich o ffic e rs w e re c a lled a s w itn e ss e s a t th e tria l a n d in se rte d th o se n a m e s in th e a ffid a v it. Fur ther, T at e adm i t t ed thathe di d notr ead the af f i davi tbef

or e he s i gned i t . L i eut enant Spoonercoul d notr eca l l di s cus s i ng R oach’ s pos s i bl e s ent ence w i th anotherof f i ceri n t he

### 11

h all w ay d u ri n g the trial, a n d h e testi fi ed that h e w o u ld n o t hav e sp ec u lat ed that R o ac h ’s s ent ence w oul d be betw een f i ve and e i ghtyear s bas ed on w hathe knew aboutthe ca s e. ¶23. T at e w as ques t i oned r epea t edl y – by hi s att orney, the St at e’ s att orney, and the j udge

– a b o u t w h e th e r th e o ffic e rs’ a lleg e d c o m m e n ts in flu e n c e d h is d e c isio n to v o te g u ilty . R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 6 d o e s n o t p e rm it “ a n y in q u ir y in to th e in te rn a l d e lib e ra tio n s o f t h e ju ro rs .” G ladney , 625 So. 2d at419. “[ A ] j ur orm ay t es t i f y on the ques t i on [ of

] w hetherextr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf

or m at i on w as i m pr oper l y br oughtt o the j ury’ s a t t ent i on orw hetherany out s i de i nf l uence w as i m proper l y br oughtt o bearupon any j ur or . ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 606( b) . B ut q u e stio n in g o f a ju ro r m u st b e lim ited to w h e th e r th e c o m m u n ica tio n w a s m a d e a n d w h a t it c o n ta in e d . G ladney , 625 So. 2 d at4 19 . Iti s i nappr opr i at e and a vi ol at i on of R ul e 606( b) “f orany j ur ort o be ques t i oned w i th r egar d t o w hetherornotthe extr aneous i nf or m at i on actual l y al t er ed hi s ver di ct . ” J a m e s v . S ta te , 91 2 S o . 2 d 9 4 0 , 9 5 0 -51 (¶ 1 8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). T he tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng T at e t o be ques t i oned abouthow the al l eged e xtr aneous i nform at i on aff

ect ed h i s del i berat i on s. ¶24. A l though the j udge err ed by aski ng i m pr operques t i ons aboutT at e’ s del i ber at i ons , the j udge b e l i e ve d tha tthe mul t i pl e c on tr a di c t i on s i n Ta t e ’ s a c c ou ntun de r mi ne d h i s c l a i m of e x tra n e o u s p re

ju d icia l in fo rm a tio n . T h e o n ly e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g R o a c h ’s c laim th a t T a te r ece i ved extr aneous i nf or m at i on w as f

r om T at e. L i eut enant Spooner ’ s t es t i m ony di d not corr obor at e Tat e’ s s t ory; and Tat e t es t i f i ed thathe di d not t el l the otherj ur or s aboutt he al l eged c onver s at i on orthe pos s i bl e fi ve-t o- ei ght - years ent ence , s o they coul d not c o rro b o ra te h is te stim o n y . T h e c irc u it c o u rt h e ld th a t R o a c h “ fa iled to p ro v e su ffic ien t fa c ts u p o n w h ich ” itco u ld g ra n t relie f o n the n e w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e c laim . U n d e r th e fa c ts

### 12

pr es ent ed, and gi vi ng def er ence t o the tr i al j udge’ s deter m i nat i on of the cr edi bi l i ty of w i tnes s es , w e ca nnots ay thatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n concl udi ng t hatR oach f ai l ed t o pr ove t hatt her e w a s go od c a us e t o b e l i e ve the j ury h a d b e e n e xp os e d t o e xtr a ne ou s pr e j ud i c i al i nf or m at i on. C . T he evi dence w as n ot suf f i ci ent t o w arrant openi ng an i nves t i gat i on or rec onveni ng t he j ury. ¶25. B eca us e R oach f ai l ed t o m ake a n adequa t e s how i ng of i m pr operi nf

l uence on the j ur y, ther e i s no need t o addr es s w hetherthe ver di ctw as al t er ed ort he j ury m us tbe r econve ned. See G ladney , 625 So. 2d at419. H ow ever , R oach r el i es on J udge C ar l t on’ s di s s entt o ar gue thatthe ca s e s houl d be r emanded f oran evi dent i ary hear i ng and t hatt he f ul l j ury s houl d be r econve ned, s o w e br i ef l y a ddr es s t hatpoi nt . J udge C ar l t on r el i ed hea vi l y on J a m e s v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 940 ( M i s s . 2005) , w hi ch i s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the i ns t antcas e. ¶ 2 6 . In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 5 , J a m e s w a s c h a rg e d w ith th e m u rd e r o f t w o c h ild re n . Id. at943 (¶ 4 ). T h e tr ia l c o u rt a llo w e d J a m e s to s e v e r t h e c o u n ts a n d tr y t h e c a s e s s e p a ra te ly . I d. D ur i ng the f

i r s ttr i al , “[ g] r eatef

f or t s w ere t aken t o m ake s ur e thatno one ment i oned any al l eged i nj ur i es t o [ the se cond chi l d] i n t he pr es ence of the j ury. ” I d. J ury s el ect i on began on J ul y 8, 1996, and the pot ent i al j ur or s w er e ques t i oned aboutthei rknow l edge of the ca s e. I d. at943 ( ¶ 5) . A tt he conc l us i on of the tr i al , i n w hic h the St at e’ s cas e had be en “ba s ed ent i r el y on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , ” the j ury f ound J ames gui l ty of

capi t al m ur der , and he
w a s s e n te n c e d to lif

e in p ri s o n . I

d. at 94 4 (¶ 6 ). ¶27. T he day af

t er the tr i al , def

ens e couns el l earned that the j ury m ay have been e xpos ed to e x tr a n e o u s p re

ju d ic ia l in fo rm a tio n . I d. at944 ( ¶ 7) . T he courtw as i nf or m ed, and a

### 13

hear i ng w as hel d on A ugus t14, 1996, atw hi ch veni r e m emberW anda C onw ay w as cal l ed to te s tif y . I d. C onw ay expl ai ned thaton J ul y 9, 1996, s he w entt o l unch w i th another p rosp ecti ve jur or and Ju rorS haw n W at son. . . . C on trary to the tr i al cou rt ’s i ns truct i ons , the w om en di s cus s ed the cas e f orappr oxi m at el y t en mi nut es dur i ng thei rl unch. W at s on st at ed t hatshe di d notr emem berthe ca s e atal l . T he otherw om en di s cus s ed w hatthey had he ar d i n the medi a, i ncl udi ng thatJ ames w a s a c c u s e d o f m u rd e ri n g a n o th e r c h ild . . . . C o n w a y als o tes tified tha t late r th a t af ter n o o n th e e n tire g ro u p w a s s e n t to sit i n anothercourtr oom . . . w hi l e the tr i al courtand att orneys w er e conduc t i ng ind ividu al vo irdire, w h ich too k sev era l h o u rs. C o n w ay t esti fi ed th at she h ea rd ma n y me mb e r s o f

th e v e n i r e d i s c u s s i n g th e c a s e a n d th a tth e r e we r e two c h ild re n in v o lv e d . S h e o v e rh e a rd a w o m a n tell a m a n , w h o w a s u lti m a tely s el ect ed as a j ur or , thatJ ames w as acc us ed of ki l l i ng tw o young chi l dr en. C onw ay t es t i f

i ed thatshe s poke t o W at s on the day a f t erthe tr i al ended. W at s on t ol d herthats he had doubt s aboutJ ames’ gui l tand thoughtthe mot her sh o u ld be i n v esti g ated . W atso n co m p lai n ed th at som e m em b ers o f th e ju ry knew aboutthe s econd c hi l d and keptbr i ngi ng i tup i n the j ury r oom . W at s on t ol d C onw ay thatseve r al j ur or s ar gued thatJ ames w as gui l ty beca us e “i tw as tw o chi l dr en. ” . . . W at s on t ol d C onw ay t hatseve r al of the j ur or s w ho s aw the dockets heetdi s cus s ed i ti n the j ury roo m and s t at ed thati ti ndi cat ed that Ja m e s w a s c h a rg e d w ith so m e th in g e lse . W a tso n sa id th e d o c k e t sh e e t sa id “ o n e o f t w o , o r f

ir s t c a s e , o r s o m e th in g lik e th a t.” I d. at944- 45 ( ¶¶ 7- 9) . A tthe end of the hea r i ng, the tri al co ur tf ound “thatther e had not been a thr es hol d s how i ng thatfurther i nqui ry w as nece s s ary. ” I d. at945 ( ¶ 10) . J ames a pp e a l e d, a nd the Cour tof A pp e a l s r e ve r s e d a nd r e mand e d wi th i ns truc t i on s f orthe t r i al courtt o “r econve ne and pol l t he j ury r egar di ng expos ur e t o extr aneous i nf or m at i on. ” I

d . at 946 ( ¶ 13) . W e agr eed that“C onw ay’s t es t i m ony m or e than s at i s f i ed the mi ni m um req u ir em en ts of G ladney and pr ovi ded a s uf f i ci entbas i s f

orthe tr i al c our tt o hol d a hear i ng” to d e te rm in e w h e th e r e x tr a n e o u s in fo rm a tio n h a d b e e n in tr o d u c e d to th e ju ry . I d. at 9 5 1 (¶ 19) ( quot i ng J

a m e s v . S ta te , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d 6 8 2 , 7 0 0 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 )).

### 14

¶28. I n the i ns t ant m att er , T at e t es t i f i ed about a tw o- or -three- sent ence conver s at i on t hat al l egedl y ha d oc curr ed s i x ye ar s e ar l i er . Tat e t es t i f i ed thathe di d n o t t el l otherj ur or s about the f i ve- t o- ei ght - year s c om m ent , a nd he onl y s pecul at ed that“ otherpe opl e” m ay have o v erh ea rd h is all eg ed interac ti o n w ith the o ffi ce rs. T h ere w as n o ev iden ce that o ther juro rs ac tually o v erh ea rd th e co n v ersa ti o n . T ate’s t esti m o n y w as n o t corro b o rated b y the o ffi ce rs orby any otherevi dence . C onver s el y, C onw ay t es t i f i ed onl y one m onth af

t ertr i al , and her t es t i m ony p ert ai ned t o m ul t i pl e s t at ement s and occ urr ence s , i ncl udi ng: thats he and other pot ent i al j ur or s had di s cus s ed t he se cond chi l d duri ng voi rdi r e; t hatm ember s of the j ur y had di s cus s ed the s econd c hi l d w hi l e w ai t i ng i n a s epar at e courtr oom dur i ng i ndi vi dual voi rdi r e; that m em b ers o f th e jury k ep t m en ti o n ing the s ec o n d ch il d in the jury roo m ; th at so m e juro rs s aw J ames l i s t ed tw i ce on the docke ts heet ; a nd thatW at s on he ar d otherj ur or s s ay J ames w as gui l ty beca us e tw o chi l dr en had been ki l l ed. Fur ther , C onw ay’ s t es t i m ony w as conf i r m ed b y o th e r j u ro rs . ¶29. T he evi dence i n the ca s e athand does notr i s e t o the l evel of the evi dence i n Jam es . T ate’s testi m o n y d id n o t sat isf y the m inim u m requ ir em en ts of G ladney and di d notpr ovi de “a s uf f i ci entba s i s f

orthe tr i al courtt o hol d a hea r i ng f orthe purpos e of

det erm i ni ng w hether extr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf or m at i on w as i ntr oduced i nt o t he j ury’ s del i ber at i ons [ . ] ” Jam es , 912 So. 2d at951 ( ¶ 19) ( quot i ng Ja m es I, 7 7 7 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 0 ). A g a in , u n d e r th e fa c ts pr es ent ed, and gi vi ng def er ence t o the tr i al judge’s det erm i nat i on of the cr edi bi l i ty of w i tnes s es , w e cannotsay thatt he t r i al j udge err ed i n concl udi ng thatR oach f ai l ed t o pr es ent s uf f i ci entevi dence t o w arr antope ni ng a n i nves t i gat i on ort o w arr antr econve ni ng the j ur y. C oncl usi on

### 15

¶ 3 0 . T h e c irc u it co u rt’s d e n ial o f R o a c h ’s m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief b a se d o n n e w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e th a t a ju ro r w a s e x p o se d to e x tra n e o u s in fo rm a tio n w a s n o t cle a rly err oneous . T he ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of R oach’ s m ot i on forp ost -convi ct i on r el i ef and the C our tof A ppeal s ’ j udgm entaf

f i r m i ng i tar e af

f i r m ed. ¶ 3 1 . AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , RANDOL P H, P. J . , LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED BY D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶3 2 . T h e m a

jo rity fin d s that the tri al co u rtd id n o t err w h en itd eterm ined that Jim m ie R o a c h h a d fa il ed to m ak e a thresh o ld sh o w ing that the ju ry in h is tri al w as e x p o sed to e x tra n e o u s, p re

ju d icia l in fo rm a tio n . W ith re sp e c t, I d isa g re e . Ju ro r D e rric k T a te c o n sis ten tly t es t i f i ed thathe w as expos ed t o out s i de ( and r adi cal l y i ncorr ect ) i nf or m at i on r egar di ng t he s ent ence thatR oach w oul d r ece i ve i f the j ury f

ound hi m gui l ty. T he s ever i ty orl eni ency of a d e fe n d a n t’s p o ss ib le s e n ten c e is p u rp o se ly w ith h e ld fro m ju rie s e x a c tly b e c a u se o f its cons i der abl e pot ent i al t o i nf l uence thei rver di ct s . B eca us e I bel i eve thatR oach m ade a th re sh o ld sh o w in g th a t at le a st o n e ju ro r w a s e x p o se d to e x tra n e o u s a n d p re su m p tiv e ly p re ju d icia l in fo rm a tio n , an d th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g o th e rw ise , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶33. T at e w as aske d m ul t i pl e t i m es by the def ens e, t he pr os ecut i on, and the court , how and t o w hatext enthi s know l edge of R oach’ s purpor t ed s ent ence af f ect ed hi s del i ber at i on. A s t he m ajority co rrectl y fi n d s, th is w as a d ir ec t v iolati o n of M issi ssipp i R u le of E v iden ce 6 0 6 (b), w hi ch pr ohi bi t s i nqui r y i nt o the ef f ectof extr aneous i nf

or m at i on upon a j ur or ’ s deci s i on. T he onl y thi ng t o w hi ch Tat e pr oper l y c oul d ha ve t es t i f i ed i s w hetherhe w as e xpos ed t o out s i de

### It is wo rth no tingth at th is h earing w as h eld mo re thansix y ears after Ro ach’s trial. 1 

### 16 i nf or m at i on, w hatthe i nf

or m at i on w as , how he w as exp osed t o i t , and w hetherhe t ol d t he r esto f t he j ury. T he tr i al courterr ed w hen i tperm i t t ed Tat e t o t es t i f y aboutthe ef

f ectt he ex tr an eo u s info rm ati o n m igh t hav e h ad o n h is de li b era ti o n an d u lt im ate d ec isi o n . T h e c o u rt compounded the err orw hen i tr el i ed upon Tat e’ s “ef f ectt es t i m ony” r egar di ng the ef f ectt he i nf or m at i on had on hi s deci s i on i n deci di ng t o deny r el i ef t o R oach: I a sk e d h im a d ire c t q u e stio n o f h o w m u c h – if th is c o n tac t oc c u rre d , h o w d id i taf f ecthi s – hi s del i ber at i ons . H e s ai d none a tal l . [ D ef ens e C ouns el ] as ked hi m the sa m e ques t i on. H e sa i d i taf f ect ed i ta l i t t l e bi t . [ T he Pr os ecut or ] as ked h im th e sa m e q u e stio n . H e sa id it d id n ’t a ffe c t ita t all. S o if M r. T a te h a d ju s t b e e n c o n s is te n t w ith w h a t is w ri tte n in h is a ff id a v it, I thi nk t hi s w oul d have bee n a cl ear - cutcas e — thati tw oul d have be en — the r el i ef w oul d have be en gr ant ed. B utunf or tunat el y M r . T at e equi vocat ed, as [D efe n se C o u n sel] said , o n m o re tha n o n e o cc asio n . A n d o n tha t ba sis I ca n ’t cons i derhi s t es t i m ony beca us e he c ont i nued t o t el l w hoeveras ked hi m the ques t i on w hatthey w ant ed t o hearatthatt i m e. ¶34 . T hu s, the t ri al j ud ge ackn ow l edg ed thathe d i d n ot consi der T at e’s t est i m on y becau se T at e had t es t i f

i ed i ncons i s t ent l y aboutthe ef f ecthi s know l edge of

R oach’ s pr obabl e s ent ence h a d o n h is d e c isio n . H a d th e ju d g e p ro p e rly re stric ted T a te’ s te stim o n y , the tes tim o n y w o u ld have s how n onl y thatT at e hea r d a pol i ce of f i cersay thatR oach w oul d re cei ve f i ve t o ei ght year s i f convi ct ed, thathe w as uns ur e abouthow he had he ar d thati nf or m at i on, thatt he of f i ceri n ques t i on cl ai m ed nott o r emem berm aki ng thats t at ement , and thatT at e d i d not relay that i n form ati o n t o othe r j u rors. Iti s true , as th e m ajority no tes, th at th e d etail s o f T ate’s s t ory r egar di ng how he hea r d aboutR oach’ s pot ent i al s ent ence change d m ul t i pl e t i m es thr oughoutthe hea r i ng. H ow ever , he neve rw aver ed conc erni ng the onl y r el evantand 1
m at er i al f

actof the ent i r e pr ocee di ng: he hear d a pol i ce of f i cersayi ng t hatR oach w oul d be

### 17

se n ten c e d to b e tw e e n fiv e a n d e ig h t y e a rs if f o u n d g u ilty . U n d e r w h a t circ u m sta n c e s th is in fo rm a tio n ca m e to T a te is o f les s im p o rta n c e tha n tha t he w a s e x p o se d to it a t a ll. See B rake v. Speed , 60 5 So . 2d 28 , 38 ( M i s s . 19 92 ) ( “ [ I ] ti s the na tur e of the i nf ormat i on acqui r ed and i t s r el at i on t o mat er i al i s s ues i n the cas e w hi ch contr ol s , no m att erw hethert he info rm ati o n w as a cc iden tal ly, casu all y o r de li b era tel y ac q u ir ed . ” ). E v e n if the tri al co u rt bas ed i t s deci s i on on the i ncons i s t enci es i n how T at e ac tual l y hear d the i nf orm at i on, t hat deci s i on st i l l w oul d be err oneous , beca us e the manneri n w hi ch Tat e r ece i ved the i nf or m at i on w as i rr el evantt o hi s pos s es s i on of i t . I ti s i m por t antt o not e that , i n e very ve r s i on of hi s s t or y, T at e cl ai m ed he hear d t he out s i de i nf or m at i on fr om a pol i ce of f i cer– an author i ty f

i gur e w ho m o st layp erso n s w o u ld de em t o be i n th e k n o w ab o u t su ch m att ers. F u rth er, in m a k in g its deci s i on, the tr i al courtr el i ed hea vi l y on i nf or m at i on thati s f

orbi dden f

r om j udi ci al i nqui r y. B eca us e the tr i al courts t at ed that, w i thoutT at e’ s equi vocat i on r egar di ng the i nf l uence t he extr aneous i nf

or m at i on ha d on hi s de ci s i on, i tw oul d be a “ cl ear - cutc as e” i n w hi ch rel i ef w oul d be gr a nt e d, I f

i nd tha tthe tr i a l c ou r t ’ s r e l i a nc e on tha tpr oh i bi t e d i nf ormat i on am o u n ted to erro r. ¶35. T he t ype of

i nf or m at i on t o w hi ch T at e w as expose d w as i nher ent l y pr ej udi ci al . T he sev erity o r l en ienc y o f a d efe n d an t’ s p o tential sen tenc e is k ep t fr o m juro rs b ec au se th ey are char ged w i th f

i ndi ng a def

endantgui l ty ornotgui l ty based onl y on the evi dence and the j udge’ s w r i t t en i ns truct i ons . T ypi cal l y, s ent enci ng i s t he pr ovi nce of the j udge, and “[ t ] he s ol e duty of

the j ury [ i ] s t o pas s on t he gui l tori nnocenc e of the ac cus ed. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 288 So. 2d 720, 722 ( M i s s . 1974) . “[ T ] he j ury s houl d have no co ncern w i th the quantum of puni s hm entt o be i m pos ed. ” Ma rk s v . S ta te , 5 3 2 S o . 2 d 9 7 6 , 9 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). In

### The Cour t a ff ir me d, howev er, be ca

usedef ens e c ounse l m adeno cont em porary 2 

### ob jectionto th e closin g arg ument andthe issu e was p rocedurallybarredonapp eal. Thi s i s no t

theon ly p r e

j udi c i a li nf

or m at i ont o whi c h thi s j uror wa s e xp os e d. The 3 

### entire jury w itnessedRo ach’s mainwitn ess bein g arrestedin co urt after testify ing . Ro ach v. Sta te , 7 So. 3d 911, 929 ( Mis s. 2009) ( Kit che ns, J. dis se nting). 18 det erm i ni ng the i m pr opr i ety of a pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum entthata mansl aught er convi ct i on w oul d nots uf f i ci ent l y puni s h a def

endantthe w ay thata murde rconvi ct i on w o u ld , this C o u rt h a s s a id th a t “[t]h e q u e stio n o f p u n ish m e n t i s c a te g o ric a lly u n re late d to w hetherthe ver di cts houl d be murde rorm ans l aught er . ” I d. at984. “The j ury have nothi ng

2 t o d o w i th, and shou l d b e t old nothi ng of, the charact er or degrees of punis hm ent i n any case w hat ever. . . . ” E ller b e e v. S ta te , 7 9 M iss. 1 0 , 3 0 S o . 5 7 , 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 0 1 ). ¶36. I t i s cl ear f

r om our j ur i s prudence that j ur i es m us t r emai n i ns ul at ed f r om i nf or m at i on re g a rd in g se n ten c in g , p re c ise ly b e c a u se su c h in fo rm a tio n c a n a ffe c t th e ir v e rd icts . In th is cas e, a j ur orhear d f

r om a pol i ce of

f i certhatR oach w oul d getf i ve t o e i ghtyear s i f

convi ct ed. G iv e n th a t R o a c h w a s e lig ib le fo r, a n d a c tu a lly re c e iv e d , on e hu ndred m ore yea rs th a n T a te heard t hat he w ou l d, I fi nd thatthi s extr aneo us inf orm at i on , w hich m i nim i zed the seri ou sness of the j ury’ s ver di ct , w as ext r emel y pre j udi ci al t o R oach. A ddi t i onal l y, thi s ki nd of out s i de 3 info rm ati o n ca n cu t bo th w ay s. H ad T ate learn ed that R o ac h co u ld be sen tenc ed t o 1 0 8 y ea rs upon convi ct i on, and s ubs equent l y det erm i ned thathe coul d notvot e gui l ty due t o t he p o ten tial se v e rity o f th e p u n is h m e n t, itis a lm o st c e rta in th a t th e S tate w o u ld c o rre c tly cont end thathe w as expos ed t o pr ej udi ci al , extr aneous i nf or m at i on. ¶3 7 . T h e fa c t th at T ate test if ied that h e d id n o t tell o ther juro rs ab o u t th is in form atio n is i rr e l e v a n t . I tt a k e s b u to n e d i s s e n t i n g v o t e t o c a u s e a mi s tr i a l i n a c r i mi n a l c a s e . URCCC

### 19

3. 10. M or eover , w e do not , nor s houl d w e, know t he ext entof T at e’ s i nf

l uence on hi s f

el l ow j ur or s dur i ng thei rdel i ber at i ons . H e may orm ay no thave be en a l eade ron thi s part i cul ar j ury. R ule 606 prohi bi t s any i nqui ry i nt o the ef f ectthatextr aneous i nf

or m at i on had on a ju ry ’s d e c isio n ; s o , w e a re le ft o n ly w ith th e in fo rm a tio n th a t, i n th is c a se , w a s im p ro p e rly r ece i ved by one mem berof the j ury. Tat e cons i s t ent l y t es t i f i ed thathe hea r d a pol i ce of f i cer s ay thatJ i m m i e R oach w oul d r ece i ve f i ve t o e i ghtye ar s i f

c onvi ct ed. T hi s i s al l thatthe tr i al cour ts houl d have c ons i der ed. I tcannotr eas onabl y be ar gued that , i f true, thi s i nf

or m at i on w as notpr ej udi ci al t o R oach, as he ac tual l y w as el i gi bl e f orroughl y f

our t een t o tw enty t i m es thi s s ent enci ng r ange. R oach ha s s how n “thatther e is suf f i ci entevi dence t o concl ude that good caus e exi s t s t o bel i eve thatther e w as i n f actan i m pr operou t si de i nf l uence or extr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf or m at i on. ” G la dn e

y v. S ta te , 6 2 5 S o . 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). ¶ 3 8 . B e c a u se R o a c h ’s trial o c c u rre d n e a rly n in e y e a rs a g o , a n e w h e a rin g w ith th e ju ry to det erm i ne i f

they w er e expos ed t o the i nf or m at i on w oul d be i nef f i ci entand of

l i t t l e val ue. Fur ther , si nce w e ar e pr ohi bi t ed f r om i nqui r i ng i nt o the ef f ectof any pr ej udi ci al i nf

or m at i on o n th e ird e lib e ra tio n s , I f a il to s e e th e v a lu e o f s u c h a h e a ri n g . See R u tla n d v. S ta te , 60 So. 3d 137, 146 ( M i s s . 2011) ( K i t chens , J . di s s ent i ng) . A ccor di ngl y, w el l - es t abl i s hed and s ound M i s s i s s i ppi pr ece dentr equi r es us t o a s s um e thatthe extr aneous i nf or m at i on a f

f ect ed t he juro r’s de cisi o n . T h u s, the o n ly rem ed y ap p rop ri ate is for this C o u rtto rev erse R o ac h ’s c o n v ictio n a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial. T h e re fo re , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , CHANDL ER AND KI NG, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.