Opinion ID: 151694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extra-Record Information

Text: Medley argues that the district court erred in not granting a mistrial after a juror viewed Medley in handcuffs. Although “extra-record information that comes to the attention of a juror is presumptively prejudicial . . . . the presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the information is harmless,” United States v. Hillard, 701 F.2d 1052, 1064 (2d Cir. 1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and a “trial court has wide discretion in deciding how to 1 Medley also argues that the district court improperly admitted the fact of his prior acquittal. It was, however, Medley’s own attorney who made reference to the acquittal. 2 pursue an inquiry into the effects of extra-record information.” Id. Here, the probability of prejudice (or the likelihood that the information was harmful) is practically non-existent as the juror who allegedly saw Medley was dismissed the same day and did not participate in deliberations. Therefore, any potential prejudice was harmless.