Opinion ID: 791956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Question Jurors Regarding Potential Prejudice

Text: 64 Green argues that his due process rights were violated when the district court failed to question the jury regarding allegedly prejudicial issues overheard by one of the jurors during a lunch break. The juror brought to the court's attention that she had overheard defense counsel speaking about the case and using Green's name. In questioning outside the presence of the rest of the jury, the juror told the court: I heard something about a gun. About somebody wearing a suit for the last time. Something about the gun wasn't found until after they searched for the drugs or something to that manner. She further admitted telling at least two other jurors that she had overheard the conversation. The following colloquy then occurred: 65 THE COURT: Did you tell them anything about the specifics of what you overheard? 66 JUROR: No, I did not. 67 THE COURT: Okay. So to the extent you talked to a couple jurors, you just said you heard things, but didn't tell them what you heard. 68 JUROR: Correct. 69 THE COURT: Are you sure about that? 70 JUROR: Correct. 71 Later in the questioning, the court again brought up the subject of whether the juror had related any of the content of what she had overheard to the other jurors: 72 THE COURT: Did you say anything to the other jurors about the specifics of what you've shared with us right now? 73 JUROR: No. 74 After giving defense counsel the opportunity to question the juror, the court decided in an abundance of caution that the juror should be excused. The court denied, however, defense counsels' requests to question other members of the jury on what they knew about the overheard conversation. The court concluded that, based on the juror's statements, the remainder of the jury had not been exposed to any prejudicial information. The court stated: 75 I'm not going to question the other two [jurors] because she said in several ways that she didn't communicate this to anyone else. And there isn't a basis in the record for me to ask anything of the other jurors what they heard. I believe this woman is being honest when she said all she said to the others is that she heard some things and didn't tell them what it was. And that's not enough for them to be tainted. 76 This court reviews for abuse of discretion the district court's decision on how to handle allegations of juror misconduct or bias. United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123, 1132 (10th Cir.1998). In this case, the court took the precautionary step of dismissing the juror in question. The court also gave defense counsel the opportunity to examine the juror, who steadfastly maintained that she had not related the content of the overheard conversation to any of the other jurors. Given that there is absolutely no evidence that any prejudicial information reached the remainder of the jury, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsels' request to question the other jurors. Similarly, in the absence of evidence that the jury was exposed to prejudicial information, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give a cautionary instruction.