Opinion ID: 3037136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: During the prosecution’s case-in-chief, on the fourth day of a nine-day trial, a police detective witnessed one juror turn to another during the trial and mouth the words “He’s guilty.” Tr. at 513. In response, before asking counsel how they wanted to proceed, the trial judge said, I don’t consider this a matter of great significance. I have a feeling that every jury that’s ever been empaneled reaches some conclusions at some point of the case. I will, however, make this record just to establish that this incident did occur and that it was brought to our attention, and I will chew on them [the jury] when I send them home tonight, once again emphasizing the admonition to maintain an open mind until all of the evidence is received, and further pointing out that should someone have reached a conclusion that no amount of defense testimony could change a conclusion as to guilt or innocence, then, for God’s sake, keep it to yourself until the matter is submitted to the jury for deliberation. And that’s basically my intention. Is that a sufficient record? Mr. Henderson [defense counsel]? Id. at 514. Defense counsel requested a modest investigation: -22- MR. HENDERSON: Your Honor, I would request that you do give a very detailed admonition to the jurors, and with no disrespect intended to the Court at all, I think some people could interpret the way that you’ve been repeating the admonition as almost kind of winking at the admonition, and I would request, first, that the Court inform the jurors that it’s very important not to talk about the evidence. . . . .... The other thing that I -- and this is just a matter of style, and I’m trying to tread lightly here. The other thing that I would request is that you ask the jurors if anyone has made any comments to you that you felt were inappropriate, that you could advise the bailiff of that, and that it would be a responsible thing for a juror to do. There have been cases of jurors, you know, who have kind of lobbied during the trial, trying to lobby other jurors to, you know, reach a conclusion. I don’t want that to happen here. So I think it would be appropriate to tell them that if you feel that someone’s trying to communicate with you inappropriately, you can advise the bailiff of that, and just leave it at that. THE COURT: I would be glad to say that for someone who’s not on the jury. MR. HENDERSON: Well, even if a member of the jury was trying to engage other jurors in a discussion of the case at this point, that would be inappropriate and it would be the right thing for the juror to do, to advise the bailiff so the Court could inquire further. THE COURT: Very well. Id. at 515-17. At the end of that day’s proceedings, in sending the jury home for the weekend, the judge admonished the jury as follows. Members of the jury, we’re going to break now for the weekend, and it becomes really critical that if someone asks you what the case is about, don’t tell them, because I don’t want you recounting testimony or explaining the parties’ positions because that might fix one version or -23- one set of facts in your mind to the detriment of the defense, who have not yet been able to put on the full case. So I’m going to say to you, again: Don’t talk about the case or anyone connected with it until I finally chase you off to the jury room to decide the matter. And if, based on the testimony you’ve heard so far, any one of you has reached a conclusion as to guilt or innocence and decided that there’s no way that can be shaken, if that’s happened, don’t share it with anybody, unless and until you finally get into the jury room to decide the case; and then that’s the time to share those convictions and beliefs. So you’re leaving for the weekend, so the previous admonition of the Court is reinforced and made stronger. Id. at 645-46 (emphasis added). Gianakos did not specifically object to this admonition and did not follow up on his request for limited investigation of juror misconduct. Nonetheless, the judge did not – as he had apparently agreed to do – instruct the jurors to tell the bailiff if other jurors had expressed their views of the case.10 At the end of the trial, before the case was submitted to the jury, Gianakos revisited the issue of juror #4’s misconduct: MR. HENDERSON: There is a juror -- I think it’s juror number 4 -- . . . who made the comment that we believe -- where she mouthed the words “he’s guilty” last week during trial . . . . We request that that juror be dismissed. We have an alternate juror. I think that juror has shown prejudice, and there is cause to dismiss juror number 4 and have her replaced by the alternate at this point. And we formally move the Court for that relief. 10 The trial judge did not say he would not instruct the jury to do this. The record, however, shows no such instruction, and Gianakos asserts on appeal – without contradiction by the government – that the judge failed to give this instruction. See Appellant’s Br. at 53; Appellee’s Br., passim. -24- THE COURT: Does the government have any position on that? I don’t know. It’s -- I’m not sure that’s what happened. It’s what the detective indicated he believed he thought he saw. MR. MYERS [the prosecutor]: We would oppose that motion, Your Honor. This has been addressed earlier by the Court. We’ll leave it at that. THE COURT: Why don’t you couple that comment in the alternative, just, again, to protect yourself and protect the record, with a motion for mistrial, if not granted. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Your Honor, if the Court does not decide not to dismiss juror number 4,we do ask for a mistrial. THE COURT: Very good. And now your record is protected on that point, as well. Id. at 1211-12. The judge denied both motions. Before leaving this presentation of the facts, I must comment on the trial judge’s late insinuation – which the majority opinion adopts, slip op., supra, at 13-14 – that we don’t really know whether there was any juror misconduct here. Let there be no mistake: The sole evidence in the record concerning the alleged misconduct is the police detective’s statement that he saw the juror mouth the words “He’s guilty” to another juror. There is no countervailing evidence, no challenge to the detective’s credibility, and no basis for any determination except that the misconduct happened. The trial judge accepted that the incident happened as the detective saw it, saying, “I will . . . make this record just to establish that this incident did occur . . . .” Tr. at 514 (emphasis added).11 Only at the end of the trial did the judge – having failed to inquire into the alleged misconduct – equivocate. 11 Detective Bryan Green, who was assisting the prosecution, is to be commended for advising the court and counsel of this incident. -25- The trial judge’s failure, against the defendant’s wishes, to conduct the necessary inquiry cannot be held against the defendant. On the evidence in the record, we must accept that the misconduct did occur. Requirements for a jury trial A criminal defendant has a right to a trial before an impartial jury. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The burden of proof is on the government. See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994). To ensure that the burden of proof stays on the government, jurors must not make up their minds about guilt or innocence until they have heard all the evidence and can consider it all together. See Winebrenner v. United States, 147 F.2d 322, 328 (8th Cir. 1945). See also United States v. Resko, 3 F.3d 684, 688-89 (3d Cir. 1993); MANUAL OF MODEL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT , R. 1.08 (2002); KEVIN F. O’MALLEY ET AL., FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE & INSTRUCTIONS § 5.10 (5th ed. 2000). The prejudice caused by drawing conclusions prematurely is exacerbated if jurors prematurely express those conclusions to others. See Winebrenner, 147 F.2d at 328. When a juror makes up her mind before hearing all the evidence, the burden of proof is effectively shifted, so far as that juror is concerned, onto the defendant. This effect is all the greater if the juror expresses her mind to others. As we said in Winebrenner sixty years ago: Such an opinion once formed could only be removed, if at all, by evidence. This in effect shifted the burden of proof and placed upon the defendants the burden of changing by evidence the opinion thus formed. A juror having in discussion not only formed but expressed his view as to the guilt or innocense of the defendant, his inclination thereafter would be to give special attention to such testimony as to his mind -26- strengthened, confirmed or vindicated the views which he had already expressed to his fellow jurors, whereas, had there been no discussion and no expression of tentative opinion, he would not be confronted with embarrassment before his fellow jurors should he change the tentative opinion which he might entertain from hearing evidence. Id. at 328. A juror who makes up her mind before hearing all the evidence is biased. She is biased in that she effectively holds the defendant to an impermissible burden of proof. Bias need not result from personal animus. Juror bias is simply the inability to decide the case properly and impartially on all of the evidence. A juror’s shifting the burden to the defendant precludes the juror from properly, lawfully deciding the case.