Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/227
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:38:10+00:00

Document:
Argued: Feb. 1, 2, 1954.
The above-stated facts were alleged in a motion for a new trial, together with an allegation that the petitioner was substantially prejudiced, thereby depriving him of a fair trial, and a request for a hearing to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident and its effect on the jury. * A supporting affidavit of the petitioner's attorneys recited the alleged occurrences and stated that if they had known of the incident they would have moved for a mistrial and requested that the juror in question be replaced by an alternate juror. Two newspaper articles reporting the incident were attached to the affidavit. The Government did not file answering affidavits. The District Court, without holding the requested hearing, denied the motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had not abused its discretion, since the petitioner had shown no prejudice to him. 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 277, 291. The case is here on writ of certiorari. 346 U.S. 884, 74 S.Ct. 144.
In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant. Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 148150, 13 S.Ct. 50, 5253, 36 L.Ed. 917; Wheaton v. United States, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 522, 527.
UNITED STATES v. Robert Paul GAGNON et al.
Anthony R. TANNER and William M. Conover, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Guy W. OLANO, Jr., and Raymond M. Gray.
Fred B. BLACK v. UNITED STATES.
Lee E. A. PARKER, Petitioner, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary.
Stephen MESAROSH, also known as Steve Nelson, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America.
Ben GOLD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.
Clinton E. JENCKS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.
Elmer F. REMMER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.