Opinion ID: 3026413
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence Concerning Knight

Text: Janice Knight, White’s girlfriend, was the nominal owner of RPC Enterprises, a printing company. The government presented evidence that White worked tirelessly to ensure that RPC was chosen as the printer for bond deals, and acted as the de facto president of the company. Moreover, the government adduced testimony that RPC lacked the equipment to perform printing jobs itself, and instead, farmed the jobs out to a separate company in New Jersey. Instead of negotiating fees with RPC, Kemp simply informed RPC what the city’s budget was, and paid RPC the maximum allotted. Thus, during the time that Kemp was treasurer, RPC charged the city for $308,000 of work, despite the fact that the New Jersey company had charged RPC only $89,000. C. Allegations of Juror Misconduct and the Discharge of Juror 11 On April 13, 2005, the case was presented to the jury. On April 27, 2005, the District Court discharged a juror, concluding that she was biased against the government. The District Court had received its first indication that something was amiss with the jury on April 18, 2005. That afternoon, the court received two notes from jurors. The first note stated: 19 Your honor, the following note was handed to me in confidence and asked that you see it. I have read it and can confirm the statements were made. The person mentioned is making the rest of the group retry the case in the jury room. We are at a stalemate in the deliberation process. Evidence is being produced at the juror’s request and when it is produced, it is being disregarded. I feel that several jurors are removing themselves from the deliberation process because they feel this effort is futile. We are slowly losing jurors as the days go by, not for lack of interest or commitment to their civic duty but for the fact that nothing they can do or say will matter. (App. at 10680.) The note also requested simple definitions of the terms “intent,” “reasonable doubt,” and conspiracy.” The second note stated: Dear Foreperson: I have concerns regarding our deliberations. I feel I must keep an open mind, evaluate the evidence and make an effort to remain neutral. When the following comments are made by a fellow juror, I have concerns about that person’s motivation and honesty. 1. “The government lies. They always lie.” 2. “English is his second language – he didn’t understand what he was saying.” 3. “How would you be! She was having chemotherapy!” 4. “I’ve interviewed many people and I know when they are on drugs.” I have tried to pass RPC book from RW’s office to the person, they refuse to look at what I was referring to, sat back in chair, closed eyes and folding their arms across their chest. I also resent the statement you are all benefitting from Ron White – two months of my civic duty should be ended with conversations with fellow jurors that have open minds. Perhaps I am trying to be too open minded. Any suggestions? 20 (App. at 10691-92.) In response to these notes, the judge called the jury into the courtroom. Then, before re-instructing the jurors on intent, reasonable doubt, and conspiracy, he stated: You have been terrific citizens. You have given up your daily lives to come in here and perform your civic duty. That is very, very important. That is appreciated by everyone. When you became jurors, you took an oath and your oath was to follow the law and part of that oath is to deliberate, and you must, as part of that oath, deliberate with each other and discuss the evidence and discuss the law and try to reach a verdict. Now, in trying to reach a verdict, you should not give up any beliefs which you have that you believe are true and sincere and that you hold to be warranted as a result of sitting as jurors and listening to this case for the last eight weeks. At the same time though, it is your duty and obligation as jurors to listen to what the other jurors say and to consider their arguments, to consider what they recall about the evidence, to consider what they recall about the law, to consider their evaluation of the witnesses and you should listen to each other and they should listen to you. So it’s important that, in the deliberative process, that all of you engage in this process of deliberating but if you have a sincere belief that the others are wrong and you are right, you are entitled to hold on to that and maintain that but you still have the duty to deliberate and discuss with each other what you believe the evidence is and why you believe it. That is part of the duty of each juror to deliberate and if you still, after doing that, you still have your own sincere belief and you believe you are right, you are entitled to maintain it but please remember, the duty to deliberate is part of your oath as being jurors. (App. at 10699-700.) 21 The following day, the judge received two more notes. The first note stated: I am finding it very difficult to deliberate with a juror who will not acknowledge any of the evidence. The juror has made comments when presented with the evidence, “show it to someone who cares.” The juror has continually referred to notes and used them as the evidence, also crosses arms over chest, leans back into chair and closes eyes and will not look over the evidence. Has made comments about “government lying.” “FBI is biased.” And “one defendant has been on chemotherapy” and 11 of us are benefitting from Ron White, (i.e. the payment we are receiving from jury duty), using analogies that does not pertain to anything. (App. at 10739.) The second note stated: I’m concerned with one of my fellow jurors’ comments during deliberations. I know every juror has their right to state feelings and opinions. Some of the remarks that I’ve hear from one individual makes me feel as though there is more bias than normal deliberations, comments such as, 1. Prosecutors and FBI agents are liars. 2. Using sympathy and feelings as factors in deliberations. 3. Saying all the jurors are receiving benefits, courtesy of Ron White. I don’t know if I should be doing this but if I didn’t, I don’t think justice was served. (App. at 10739-40.) After receiving this note, the court heard argument from all counsel, and resolved to question each juror individually. The court asked three questions of each juror, in camera: (1) “Are you personally experiencing any problems with how the 22 deliberations are proceeding without telling us anything about the votes as to guilt or innocence? If yes, describe the problem.” (2) “Are all the jurors discussing the evidence or lack of evidence?” (3) “Are all the jurors following the court’s instructions on the law?” (App. at 10758.) The jurors’ responses may be summarized as follows: Juror 1: There was a problem at one point, but at the moment all jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 2: Juror 11 was very prejudiced against individuals based on their occupation. Juror 3: While deliberations were stressful, all jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 4: All jurors were properly discussing the evidence or lack of evidence, but sometimes certain jurors refused to look at evidence that other jurors found pertinent. Juror 5: All jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 6: All jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 7: All jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 8: Juror 11 was refusing to consider evidence. Juror 9: Juror 11 sometimes refused to look at evidence presented by other jurors, and was reasoning illogically. However, the jurors had made a break that day and it seemed that the deliberations were progressing. Juror 10: All jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 11: The jurors were making progress. Juror 12: All jurors were considering the evidence, but one juror said that the prosecutors were lying and that all jurors were receiving benefits from Ron White. The District Court decided, on the basis of these responses, that no further instructions were necessary. The next day the judge received a note stating “the hearing in your chambers has helped facilitate the deliberations.” (App. at 10791.) Despite these glad tidings, on April 25, the jurors passed a note to the judge stating: 23 Your Honor, deliberations have stopped! One of the jurors has changed their mind over the weekend on several counts that were decided last Thursday. The reasons stated by the juror are illogical. The following jurors do not believe further deliberations will be at all beneficial. It is unfair to the defendants, the lawyers, and the people of Philadelphia to continue deliberations in this manner. (App. at 10862.7.) The note was signed by nine jurors. Based on this note, the court decided to question the jurors individually a second time. The judge asked each juror: (1) “Is there any juror or jurors who are refusing to deliberate?” (2) “Is there any juror who is refusing to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence?” (3) “Is there any juror who is refusing to follow the Court’s instructions?” (App. at 10862.20.) The jurors’ responses are as follows: Juror 1: Juror 11 did not seem to be deliberating, but was discussing the evidence and following the instructions. Juror 2: Juror 11 was not cooperating and was refusing to discuss the evidence. Juror 3: Three jurors were refusing to listen to the others, with Juror 11 particularly culpable. Juror 4: Juror 11 was refusing to deliberate and discuss the evidence. Juror 5: One juror was refusing to deliberate. Juror 6: All jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 7: Juror 11 was refusing to follow the court’s instructions. Juror 8: Juror 11 was refusing to deliberate and discuss the evidence. Juror 9: Juror 11 was refusing to discuss the evidence. Juror 10: All jurors were acting appropriately. Juror 11: One or two jurors seemed to feel that they were done talking about certain topics. 24 Juror 12: Juror 11 was refusing to deliberate and discuss the evidence. Immediately after completing this voir dire, the judge received a note stating that “the jury did not feel the right questions were asked.” (App. at 10862.43.) The jurors suggested the following questions: 1. Why have the jurors stopped deliberating? 2. Are jurors looking at the evidence logically and forming a reasonable opinion about each individual count? 3. Have jurors entered into deliberations with preconceived notions or prejudices? 4. Can you summarize the deliberations and how you feel they are progressing? 5. Are jurors using emotions rather than evidence to rule on certain counts? Most counts? 6. Your Honor, is it possible to allow the jurors to expand on their answers? (App. 10862.43-44.) Upon receiving this note, the judge dismissed the jury for the day to allow himself time to consider how to proceed. The next day, the judge provided additional instructions to the jurors. The judge first told the jurors that the questions he had asked the day before were “the only questions which [he felt he was] entitled to ask at that time,” so as to avoid intruding into the jury deliberations. (App. at 10874.) He stated, however, that he could “ask questions to [ensure] that all of you are following your oaths as jurors, that you are reviewing the evidence, that you are deliberating with each other and that you are following my instructions.” (App. at 10876.) The judge then reminded the jurors that they were under oath, and that they had promised to decide the case fairly and impartially without being swayed by either the race or the occupation of the defendants and witnesses. The judge reiterated that the jurors were prohibited from using prejudice or bias in making decisions, and explained that if any juror did so, that juror was not following his instructions. The court also re-instructed the jurors about their duty to deliberate, 25 but emphasized that “if you come to different views of the facts, you are entitled to maintain those views as long as you consider the views of others.” (App. at 10882.) The next day (April 27), the judge received three notes. The first asked legal questions. The second was from Juror 11, and stated: Is it permissible to discuss the fact that we have heard only selected portions of selected phone calls and to try to evaluate what this might mean in determining what was going on and what people intended to do? Can you consider omitted evidence – for example, the prosecution only showed us what they wanted to show? Is it permissible to try to illustrate how two people might understand a conversation differently? (App. at 10896.) The third note asked two preliminary questions, and then stated, “How do we inform the court a juror has violated his or her oath (i.e., biased against the government. States prosecution makes up stories).” (App. at 10896.) The court then instructed the jury about the legal questions contained in the notes, and concluded: “Ladies and gentlemen, as I said yesterday, bias is a violation of a juror’s oath. If one of you or more of you believe that a juror is biased against the government, I instruct you to send me another note, saying that you believe that, and then the remedy is that I will have the jury come into the conference room again, one by one.” (App. 10922.) After hearing argument from counsel, the court clarified a few points with the jurors, including the bias instruction. The court stated: I want to make it clear that when we talk about bias . . . we are talking about bias against a specific type of person or against a specific occupation or bias against the prosecution and that the juror is unwilling to put aside that bias. If the juror or jurors say, they don’t believe someone or a particular piece of 26 evidence, that is not bias. That is just a discussion on the evidence presented in the case. But as I said before, if there are jurors who believe that a juror is unwilling to put aside bias, is using bias, that is something you should send me a note about . . . . (App. at 10935-36.) Soon afterward, the court received two more notes. The first stated: I believe the following statements reflect bias by a juror: The government lies. The prosecution made it up. They couldn’t get Ron White so they made this up about Corey Kemp. They didn’t play all of the calls. They omitted evidence. You didn’t hear what they didn’t want you to hear. The FBI lies. The government didn’t present the evidence to prove anything. (App. at 10949.) The second note, signed by the foreman, stated simply, “[A]sk the three questions again in your chambers.” (App. at 10949.) Based on these notes, the court conducted another individual voir dire, which yielded the following information: Juror 1: Juror 11 refused to deliberate and discuss the evidence, and would not put aside her bias. Juror 2: Juror 11 refused to deliberate and discuss the evidence, and was very prejudiced against the government. Juror 2 also stated: “You just can’t talk to [Juror No. 11]. She goes nuts. She starts banging on the table. She won’t listen to us. Won’t let anybody get a word in edge-wise. . . . If we present her with evidence, she flips through her notes and does not want to hear any evidence.” Juror 2 went on to emphasize that “[Juror No. 11] is totally against the government. We have heard her say, the FBI are nothing but a bunch of liars.” Juror 3: Three jurors had a difficult time listening to each other, but Juror 11 just shut down and refused 27 to look at evidence that was shown to her. Juror 11 was also off task and biased against the FBI and the government. Juror 3 also stated: “People disagree on a lot of things. But when the arguments are with 11, it’s just like slamming your head into a wall.” Juror 4: Juror 11 refused to deliberate or discuss the evidence, and was biased. Juror 5: All jurors were deliberating and discussing evidence, but Juror 11 was “a bit biased, not tending enough to the evidence and instructions.” Juror 6: All jurors were deliberating, and Juror 11 was not biased, but did refuse to look at the evidence. Juror 7: All jurors were deliberating, but Juror 11 was refusing to discuss the evidence. Further, Juror 11 was biased to a point concerning witnesses’s occupations and was allowing that to cloud her judgment. However, she was not letting it affect her “that much.” Juror 8: Juror 11 was refusing to deliberate and would not look at any evidence. She also was biased and unable to put that bias aside. Juror 9: Juror 11 was refusing to deliberate and would not look at evidence that was presented to her. Juror 11 also held prejudices against the government or the FBI, and was unwilling to put those prejudices aside. Juror 10: Juror 11 refused to deliberate, ignored evidence, carried a personal agenda, and was biased. Juror 11: No jurors were refusing to deliberate or discuss the evidence. However, some people had difficulty focusing on the specific elements of a crime instead of just concluding that a defendant was guilty because the juror disapproved of the defendant’s behavior. The jurors had been attempting to rule on guilt or innocence count by count, which was difficult for her, because so many of the issues were interrelated. Once the jury began to evaluate evidence on a different issue, Juror 11 said, “[W]ait a minute here, this contradicts what we agreed to back here. . . . I agreed with you about 28 here now I’m looking at this evidence and I don’t think that is there anymore.” All the jurors were working to put aside their biases. When asked whether she was biased against the FBI, Juror 11 responded that she didn’t think so, and that her comments concerning the FBI were made only to refute another juror’s statement that they only had to consider the FBI’s evidence. She had not claimed that FBI agents always lie; instead, she had said that they are “probably accomplished liars” from doing undercover work, and that they are therefore probably skilled at detecting when someone is lying to them. Juror 12: Juror 11 was refusing to deliberate or discuss evidence, and was biased against law enforcement. Speaking of Juror 11’s bias, Juror 12 stated that “it’s not the witnesses in the trial. It’s the preconceived notion that law enforcement lies, they are telling lies.” Juror 11 then asked to return to clarify her previous statements. She stated that she had actually said that she “thought FBI agents were among the most credible witnesses because they were careful to say what they believed to be the truth and to distinguish fact from opinion.” (App. at. 11062.) She also claimed to have said that one agent may have been biased going into his interview with Janice Knight because he had previously heard so much incriminatory information about her. To recap, eight jurors (1-4, 8-10, 12) stated in clear terms that Juror No. 11 violated her duty to deliberate in good faith and to be free of preconceived biases that informed her decisionmaking. Juror No. 11 denied any allegations of bias or a refusal to deliberate. Juror No. 5 stated that no juror was refusing to deliberate or discuss the evidence/lack of evidence, and that all the jurors were following the District Court’s instructions. This juror also stated that Juror No. 11 was “a bit biased, not tending enough to the evidence and instructions, but we are working on that.” Juror No. 6 stated that Juror No. 11 was not refusing to follow the instructions, and that she was not biased either. 29 However, Juror No. 6 did note that Juror No. 11's answers were “pretty much set in stone,” making it “hard to show her the evidence.” Juror No. 7 stated that no juror was refusing to deliberate, although he believed that Juror No. 11 refused to consider the evidence or lack of evidence. Juror No. 7 also noted that Juror No. 11 expressed bias against certain occupations. Based on these responses, the court granted the government’s motion to discharge Juror 11. The court stated: We have 11 out of the 12 jurors have made affirmative responses to at least one of the questions that I posited to them concerning juror number 11. . . . I find that the other 11 jurors are more credible than juror number 11. And to put it bluntly, I find that juror number 11 is in denial. She is articulate but she is not credible. You cannot balance her testimony that she made here against 11 of her fellow jurors. I find that they are more credible than she is, and I find that she is biased against the government. . . . I find that she has come in here and tried to articulate using an educated background. She is articulate but she is in total denial of what I find to be the facts as expressed by the other 11 jurors . . . . (App. at 11079-80.) The District Court then seated an alternate juror who had been sequestered during the first round of deliberations. D. The Verdict On May 10, 2005, the reconstituted jury returned its verdict. Kemp was convicted of conspiracy, seven counts of wire fraud, 11 counts of mail fraud, one count of attempted extortion, one count of extortion, two counts of making false statements to a bank, and four counts of filing a false income tax return; Hawkins was convicted of one count of wire fraud and three counts of perjury; Holck and Umbrell were convicted of 30 conspiracy and two counts of wire fraud; and Knight was convicted of two counts of making false statements to the FBI. The jury also acquitted the defendants or was unable to reach a verdict on a number of charges.10 Ultimately, the District Court sentenced Kemp to 120 months’ imprisonment, Holck to 28 months’ imprisonment, Umbrell to 27 months’ imprisonment, Hawkins to 33 months’ imprisonment, and Knight to 5.5 months’ imprisonment. All five defendants then filed timely appeals.