Opinion ID: 435908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: communication with jury

Text: 44 During deliberations, the jury sent three notes to the trial judge asking for supplemental information. Retired Judge William Campbell 12 answered the notes without prior notice to any counsel and outside of their presence. Appellants assert that this procedure violated their constitutional right to be present at every stage of the proceeding. Although we do not approve the procedure followed by the district judge, we find the error harmless. 45 In Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 38, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 2094, 45 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975), the Supreme Court established the rule concerning the right of a defendant and his counsel to be present and participate in any discussion between the judge and the jury. The Court stated that the orderly conduct of a trial by jury, essential to the proper protection of the right to be heard, entitles the parties ... to be present in person or by counsel at all proceedings from the time the jury is impaneled until it is discharged after rendering the verdict. Id. at 38, 95 S.Ct. at 2094, quoting Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 U.S. 76, 39 S.Ct. 435, 63 L.Ed. 853 (1919). However, the Rogers opinion clearly indicated that in some circumstances the error can be harmless. Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. at 40, 95 S.Ct. at 2095. This is such a case. 46 The court and the jury communicated three times outside the presence of counsel: 47 QUESTION: Can we find less than 4 defendants guilty of Count III? 48 COURT: Yes. 49 QUESTION: We need clarification as to conspiracy, (Count III) being a separate charge as stated in Indictment, or is conspiracy automatically included in Counts I and II? 50 COURT: Yes. 51 QUESTION: Is the jury allowed to request leniency for any defendant(s) if a guilty verdict is found on any count? If the answer is yes, how do we go about making such a request? 52 COURT: No. 53 R.Vol. IX at 1884-1885. 54 These were the only answers given to the jury by the judge. 13 55 We do not approve of any unjustified communication between the court and the jury without notifying counsel and therefore do not approve the procedure followed by the trial judge in this case. But, in this case, the error was harmless. The jury had a complete copy of all charges in the jury room. They could refer back to the charges and find the answers they needed. The judge's answers to the questions were responsive and clearly stated the law. Appellants have not shown any error or prejudice. The error is harmless. United States v. McDuffie, 542 F.2d 236, 241 (5th Cir.1976). AFFIRMED.