Opinion ID: 77655
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Interview Juror Cetoute

Text: 28 Approximately two months after the verdict was rendered, Polynice filed a sealed motion to interview Juror Cetoute regarding an alleged extrinsic contact with a non-juror during deliberations. During Polynice's sentencing hearing, the district court allowed Polynice's counsel to discuss the motion to interview Cetoute and to present a witness in support of the motion. The witness, Celia Metayer (Polynice's sister), testified that during jury deliberations, she saw Juror Cetoute at a McDonald's restaurant. Metayer claimed that she overheard Cetoute say to a non-juror: Well you know those boys—those boys got felony anyway, and that We asked the Judge for questions—we have a lot of questions. We asked him for help. He won't help us. And those boys got felonies. We are going to take a vote on it. According to Metayer, the non-juror responded What are you talking about? Metayer could not remember the precise day on which this exchange occurred, and she claimed that she did not immediately report the incident to defense counsel because she was afraid of the law. She did not relay this information to her brother, Polynice, until after the verdict, at which time Polynice informed his counsel. 29 In a written order, the district court denied Polynice's motion to interview Juror Cetoute, concluding that the evidence did not rise to the level needed for a juror interview. The court held that even accepting Metayer's testimony as true, there were no allegations of external influence on the jurors, there was no indication that an outside influence affected the verdict, and there was no substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety occurred that could have prejudiced Polynice. On appeal, Polynice argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. We disagree. 30 As the district court concluded, even if Metayer's account is accepted, at most, it demonstrates that Juror Cetoute disobeyed the district court's instruction to not discuss the case. Polynice does not argue that extraneous prejudicial information was brought to Juror Cetoute's attention, that extraneous information entered into her decisionmaking, or that she was subject to improper outside influence. Under our case law, the district court did not err when it refused to allow Polynice's counsel to interview Juror Cetoute.