Opinion ID: 6500514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure of the District Court’s First

Text: Conversation with Juror #869 As noted earlier, the District Court disclosed to the parties that Juror #8 feared the disclosure of her identity and potential retaliation, which she voiced to the Court outside the presence of the parties. The Court’s disclosure came after its second conversation with Juror #8, so the Defendants now fault the Court for failing to disclose Juror #8’s concerns after the first conversation, which occurred “three or four weeks” prior. (JAC at 13557.) According to the Defendants, they were “stripped of an opportunity to be heard” when the issue of Juror #8’s fear first arose. (NS Opening Br. at 155.) They claim that, had they been given that opportunity, they would have immediately moved to remove her from the jury. Instead, Juror #8 continued to serve an additional three or four weeks, creating what the Defendants describe as an “overwhelming” “likelihood” that the rest of the jury “learned of Juror #8’s fear that harm would inevitably come to her or her family upon rendering a verdict[.]” (NS Opening Br. at 156.) The Defendants therefore claim that the Court’s initial silence amounted to a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, since it effectively prevented them from being contemporaneously 69 We review for harmless error a district court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s right to be present at every stage of his or her criminal proceeding. United States v. Toliver, 330 F.3d 607, 611-12 (3d Cir. 2003). 110 involved in their trial proceedings. United States v. Toliver, 330 F.3d 607, 611 (3d Cir. 2003). The Defendants are correct that they generally have the “right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of [their] trial.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 (1970) (under the Confrontation Clause); accord United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1397 (3d Cir. 1994) (under the Due Process Clause); Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a)(2) (“[T]he defendant must be present at … every trial stage[.]”). But that right is not absolute. While we have “stress[ed] the advisability of having counsel present for all interactions between the court and jurors,” United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217, 242 (3d Cir. 2020), “[t]he defense has no constitutional right to be present at every interaction between a judge and a juror[.]” United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To guarantee an absolute right would run counter to the “day-to-day realities of courtroom life” because “[t]here is scarcely a lengthy trial in which one or more jurors do not have occasion to speak to the trial judge about something, whether it relates to a matter of personal comfort or to some aspect of the trial.” Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 118-19 (1983) (per curiam). Still, “[w]hen an ex parte communication [between judge and juror] relates to some aspect of the trial, the trial judge generally should disclose the communication to counsel for all parties.” Id. at 119. It may have been less than ideal for the District Court not to notify the parties of the first communication with Juror #8 until after speaking with her again three or four weeks later. The Supreme Court has instructed trial courts to “promptly” notify the parties after a communication from a juror. Id. at 117 n.2. And it would have been better for the first 111 communication to have been transcribed, which is “our preference [for] such interactions[.]” Savage, 970 F.3d at 242. It was on a relevant topic bearing directly on Juror #8’s ability to remain fair and impartial while she heard evidence. See Rushen, 464 U.S. at 119 (noting that disclosure is proper when the communication “relates to some aspect of the trial”). Although the Defendants’ attorneys did not necessarily need to be present for Juror #8’s first communication with the Court, Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 526, the better course would have been to consult them after the communication and to give them a chance to participate in the decision-making on how to proceed. Cf. Toliver, 330 F.3d at 616 (“[B]y not informing counsel of the jury’s note [requesting a specific transcript] before responding, the trial judge foreclosed any opportunity for the defense to argue against submitting the testimony at all, or at least to argue that the transcript should include relevant portions of cross-examination.”). But even if the Court’s delay were seen as error, it was harmless. Id. at 613. The Defendants’ complaint is that the delay gave Juror #8 a chance to express her fears to her fellow jurors and thus infect the entire jury with fearful bias against the Defendants. But they do nothing more than speculate that other jurors learned of Juror #8’s fear of retaliation. In fact, the record supports the opposite conclusion: in response to concerns raised by the Defendants’ attorneys, the Court “inquire[d] again as to whether or not [Juror #8] made any comments to any of the jurors about the reasons why she can’t continue” and confirmed that Juror #8 “ha[d] not made any comments at all to other jurors.” (JAC at 13562.) The Defendants’ “sheer speculation” to the contrary cannot substantiate their claim that they were harmed by the late 112 disclosure of the first conversation the Court had with Juror #8. United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir. 1980).