Opinion ID: 2813315
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Information Relayed by Juror 1

Text: The government argues that the information that Juror 1 relayed to the rest of the jury was not extrinsic. The government asks us to imagine a scenario where a juror pretends that she overheard information that gave her comfort in voting guilty, but, in fact, she has not overheard any information. The government argues that this situation would simply involve the juror’s strategy to persuade other jurors and therefore would be an intrinsic rather than extrinsic injection of information into the deliberation room. We reject this argument. A juror’s reference to non-record evidence that directly pertains to the particular case being considered is by definition an injection of extrinsic information, even if it is fabricated. The government also argues that the intrusion on the rest of the jury was de minimis, given that Juror 1 did not actually reveal the extrinsic information. But, given the nature of the communication (the foreperson vouching for Mix’s guilt based on unrevealed extrinsic evidence), the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that prejudice was likely. Moreover, objective evidence indicated that the jury was indeed affected by Juror 1’s statement. The statement was made by the foreperson during a deadlock, and, within two hours, the jury returned a guilty verdict. 3 This evidence further supports a holding that prejudice was likely. The district 3 The government disputes that Juror 1 made her statement after the district court gave the modified Allen charge. But the district court found that the jury convicted Mix two hours after Juror 1 made her extrinsic statement, which means that it found that the statement was made after it issued the Allen charge. Further, one of the jurors testified that Juror 1 told the jury about the extrinsic information either at the end of the day that they received the Allen charge or on the morning after that. Three other jurors also testified that they believed that she made the statement after they had notified the district court of the deadlock. So the district court was justified in inferring that Juror 1 made her statement after or shortly before the Allen charge, meaning that the jurors resolved their deadlock and came to their decision within two hours of hearing her statement. 9 Case: 14-30837 Document: 00513099242 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 No. 14-30837 court therefore did not abuse its discretion in holding that the presumption of prejudice was triggered.