Opinion ID: 755030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the prejudicial statement was ambiguously phrased;

Text: 14 2. whether the extraneous information was otherwise admissible or merely cumulative of other evidence adduced at trial; 15 3. whether a curative instruction was given or some other step taken to ameliorate the prejudice; 4. the trial context; 2 and 16 5. whether the statement was insufficiently prejudicial given the issues and evidence in the case. 17 Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1491-92 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 586, 139 L.Ed.2d 423 (1997). These factors confirm that there is not a reasonable possibility that the tough guys statement could have affected the verdict. 18 First, the statement was ambiguously phrased. Juror Youngblood did not state that the defendants were gang members or engaged in specific criminal activity. Rather, he called them tough or bad, a description inferable from the evidence presented at trial. We think this statement is much more ambiguous than the extrinsic evidence at issue in Lawson v. Borg, 60 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.1995). In Lawson, a juror stated that he knew the defendant to be very violent because he had personally researched his background. See id. at 610 n. 2. Juror Youngblood did not convey such personal and specific information. See Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming finding of no prejudice in part because the juror's remark--pleaded guilty at one time and changed it--was vague and awkwardly phrased), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 227, 136 L.Ed.2d 159 (1996). 19 Second, the tough guys statement was consistent with, and therefore cumulative of, other evidence presented at trial. Many of the wiretap calls placed in evidence by the government revealed that the defendants were, in fact, tough guys. For example, Anthony Flowers is heard discussing assault weapons and describing how he had almost shot an Oakland police officer. In another call, Jerry Fiorillo tells Flowers that he should slap that [expletive] punk for failing to pay the agreed upon price for cocaine. In addition, the district court admitted several seized weapons into evidence. A juror could easily infer from this evidence that the defendants were tough guys. 20 Third, the jurors' testimony at the evidentiary hearings indicated that any discussion of the tough guys statement was brief. The jurors denied discussing or considering it during deliberations. Moreover, juror Youngblood denied making the statement and maintained that he never had any extrajudicial information about the defendants. 21 Fourth, the government's evidence against the defendants was very strong. Given that evidence, we think it quite unlikely that the ambiguous and cumulative tough guys statement could have affected the verdict. Rather, the jury based its verdict on the compelling evidence presented at trial. 22 After applying the relevant factors, we are convinced that there is not a reasonable possibility that the tough guys statement could have affected the verdict. The statement was ambiguous, cumulative of other evidence, and insufficiently prejudicial given the prosecution's case. The government showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement did not contribute to the verdict. Consequently, it should not have been the basis for a new trial.