Opinion ID: 815249
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The chalks

Text: Deleon's first argument is that the district court improperly submitted to the jury three summary charts that the government had used as chalks, or demonstrative jury aids, at trial.3 Because her trial counsel explicitly consented to the submission of the chalks, however, Deleon's claim is waived, and we need not address its merits. On November 19, 2008, after the jury had begun its deliberations, the district court alerted the parties that the jury had submitted the following question to the court: Would it be possible to have the exhibit numbers indicated on the verdict form. Given the number of counts and amount of evidence, it would be helpful. The district court noted that the exhibit numbers were listed on the chalks, which were not in evidence and thus not in the jury room, and asked the parties for their input. 3 The chalks were labeled False Statement Counts, False Tax Return Counts, and Mail Fraud Counts. They largely duplicated charts included in the superseding indictment, which listed each group of counts against Deleon and relevant information related to those counts. The chalks did, however, have one additional column listing the trial evidence admitted in support of each count. -4- The government suggested that the court give the chalks to the jury. Defense counsel responded, I don't have a problem with that, but indicated that he wanted to review the copies of the chalks in his file to confirm that (as the government had indicated) the chalks did not reflect anything more than the counts in the indictment and the exhibits that related to each count.4 The record is unclear as to whether defense counsel in fact examined the chalks, but he did proceed to say, Your Honor, I'm fine with that. We were just talking about it. The court then had a brief discussion with the government about obtaining the original chalks and bringing them to the courtroom. Finally, the court had the following exchange with the parties: The Court: All right. Is there any reason that the Court just simply can't submit those chalks in response without calling the jury back in and doing it on -- Government counsel: I don't think so. The Court: What I will do then, as soon as you get the chalks and run them by [defense counsel] that he agrees –- Defense counsel: I'm satisfied, your Honor. The Court: Give me those three chalks. I will give them to the deputy, who will turn them over to the marshal, who will give them to the jury. 4 The False Tax Return Counts chalk actually included not exhibit numbers but calculations that an IRS revenue agent had made and testified to at trial. -5- Deleon's trial counsel thus made three statements indicating his acquiescence: I don't have a problem with that when the government initially proposed the plan, and then, after either looking at the chalks or simply conferring with the government, Your Honor, I'm fine with that and I'm satisfied, your Honor. That is a quintessential example of [t]he intentional relinquishment of a known right, which results in a waiver and makes Deleon's claim unreviewable on appeal. United States v. Carrasco-De-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2009). Though we may, on rare occasions, forgive waivers solely as a matter of discretion, United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212, 227 (1st Cir. 2011), we see no reason to do so here.