Opinion ID: 2645608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions and Excused Juror

Text: 4 The government argues that we should review this evidentiary issue only for plain error. Because we later conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of the details of the domestic battery offense, we need not decide whether Cameron adequately objected or whether plain error review applies. 7 Case: 13-10576 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 8 of 17 Following closing arguments, the district court instructed the jury. The court cautioned that the jury could consider Cameron’s prior domestic battery only to determine “whether the elements of the offense charged against the Defendant in the indictment have been established. The fact that the Defendant was previously found guilty of another crime does not mean that he committed the crime for which he is on trial here.” The court further cautioned, “[y]ou must not consider this prior conviction for any purpose other than to establish the existence of the prior conviction.” The court also cautioned the jury that Cameron was on trial “only for the specific crime charged in the indictment” and that the jury was only to determine whether Cameron was guilty or not guilty of the specific crime. The district court sent the jury home for the evening with deliberations set to begin the next day. When the district court reconvened proceedings the next morning, it announced that a juror had received a Facebook friend request from Cameron the night before. According to the juror, she had not accepted the request or viewed Cameron’s Facebook profile page. Nevertheless, the juror found the friend request unsettling. Therefore, the district court excused the juror and replaced her with an alternate juror.