Opinion ID: 766798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ex parte jury communication with the district court

Text: 20 Lastly, Flynn argues he was prejudiced by the district court's ex parte contact with the jury. During deliberations, the jury foreperson advised the jury clerk that another juror had stated, [I]f we are not out of here in one hour, I will start beating someone up, and that he wanted to be out of here by ten o'clock. Later, the jury clerk gave the district court a note regarding the clerk's contact with the jury, including what the foreperson had said. The district court did not immediately advise counsel of the clerk's note or the foreperson's comments, nor did he address the jury. Flynn contends the district court's decision not to respond was itself a response, and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, he had a right to be present during the jury clerk's communication, or at least informed of the communication, so he could suggest an alternative response to the foreperson's concern. 21 We need not address Flynn's argument on its merits. Except when based on the discovery of new evidence, a motion for new trial must be presented within seven days of a verdict or finding of guilty, unless the court grants the defendant an extension within the original seven-day time period. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. If a motion for new trial is not timely filed, the court lacks authority to grant a new trial. See United States v. Fiddler, 688 F.2d 45, 48 n.12 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Similarly, additional grounds for relief raised after a timely-filed motion are procedurally barred. See United States v. Holt, 170 F.3d 698, 702-03 (7th Cir. 1999). 22 Flynn was found guilty on September 10, 1998, and moved for a new trial on September 17, 1998. In his motion, Flynn maintained his trial had been tainted by juror misconduct, specifically, that the foreperson's contact with the jury clerk was a sufficient outside influence to warrant a new trial. The district court denied his motion. On April 19, 1999, Flynn filed a second motion for new trial, which he characterized as his renewed motion. This time Flynn claimed that the district court erred in failing to notify counsel of the jury clerk's note immediately after receipt, essentially arguing that the district court violated Rule 43 by receiving a communication from the jury ex parte. 23 Flynn concedes he did not raise his argument that the district court violated Rule 43 until his second motion, (Appellant's Reply Br. at 2), but argues that it was nevertheless tangentially raised in Appellant's initial, timely motion for new trial, (Appellant's Reply Br. at 1). 24 We have carefully reviewed the record, paying particular attention to Flynn's two motions for a new trial, and conclude that the second motion cannot properly be considered a renewal of the first motion. The relevant part of the first motion dealt exclusively with the foreperson's communication with the clerk. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. New Trial at 7.) The second motion was based not on the juror's communication with the clerk, but rather on the district court's discovery of and response to 4 that communication. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Renewed Mot. New Trial at 1-4.) Flynn did not allege juror misconduct in his second motion, but instead proceeded under the theory that he should have been present when the district court received the communication and given an opportunity to suggest a response. (Id.) 25 Flynn would have us consider two distinct, separate events-the interaction between the clerk and the foreperson, and the district court's discovery of and response to that interaction-as relating to the same underlying circumstances. Even if we were to accept his assertion that both of his motions were loosely based on the same facts, he still cannot overcome the procedural bar, since the motions allege very different violations of Flynn's rights-the first that he was prejudiced by the jury's conduct, and the second that he was prejudiced by the court's conduct. Because Flynn's renewed motion for a new trial was actually a second, untimely motion, we have no jurisdiction to consider its merits. 5