Opinion ID: 202690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Throat-Slitting Gesture and Fair Trial Rights

Text: 15 On the morning of the third day of trial, Friday, May 6, 2005, the government's witness was Lt. Balcom. During questioning, Lt. Balcom indicated that on one occasion he had observed some of the individuals in the courtroom in the red van. At the prosecutor's request, Lt. Balcom pointed out these people in the courtroom. 16 During the morning break, a juror reported privately to the court that she and another juror had seen one of the individuals identified by Lt. Balcom make a throat-slitting gesture on the second day of trial, Wednesday, May 4. After the break and outside of the presence of the jury, the court inquired and was told by defense counsel that the man in question was Tejeda's grandfather. The jury was never informed of this fact. 17 The court reported to counsel, outside the presence of the jury, that a juror had stated that she had observed Tejeda's grandfather making a throat-slitting gesture. The court then ordered the gesturer and his wife to leave the courthouse and barred them from the courthouse and the surrounding vicinity. At least some members of the jury were later informed of the court's order. On the record, the court described the man barred from the courtroom as an obviously frail appearing, old man. 18 Tejeda and Figueroa both moved for mistrial. When the court discussed holding voir dire of the two jurors who reportedly had seen the gesture, Tejeda's counsel expressed concern that the proposed voir dire would only heighten the issue for the jury. 19 Before starting the trial again that Friday, the court said to the jurors: 20 A matter has been conveyed to . . . me and I have taken care of it completely. Put it out of your mind. It has nothing to do with this case. Have in mind, while the report is fully appropriate, indeed we want such a report, do not discuss the case among yourselves, the case now, in the jury room. 21 Tejeda did not object to the instruction, and the trial continued for the day. Later, several of the jurors, on query, said that the jury had complied with this instruction. Assuming that to be true, any discussion amongst the jurors occurred before the court dealt with the report of the gesture. 22 On Sunday, May 8, Tejeda submitted a written mistrial motion. On Monday, May 9, the court denied the motion but told the parties it would grant their request to voir dire the juror who had reported the gesture, Juror 11. 23 The court then individually questioned Juror 11. She said that she was concerned about the gesture but did not report it on the day she saw it. It was only after she heard the testimony of Lt. Balcom identifying the spectator as having been at the red van that she started to feel uncomfortable about what she had seen the spectator do two days earlier. After hearing Lt. Balcom's testimony on Friday morning, she reported the gesture to several of the other jurors, some of whom told her she should disclose it to the court, and so she did. The court had earlier instructed the jurors not to discuss the case. 24 When asked whether she had linked the individual making the gesture to any particular party in the case, Juror 11 answered that she didn't know whether the older gentleman and the lady who had been sitting with him had anything to do with a particular person or side. The juror stated that all she knew was that Lt. Balcom had testified to seeing one of them in the red van. While she recognized the public nature of the courtroom setting, she was concerned that people in the courtroom could know the names of the jurors. The court asked whether she could put the incident out of her mind when evaluating the case and be fair to all parties. She answered affirmatively, and the court, observing her, found her to be forthcoming. Tejeda again moved for mistrial. 25 The court then questioned Juror 6, who also had seen the gesture. Juror 6 described the gesture as odd and a strange thing to do in the middle of a court proceeding but did not think there was anything to it. She said that it was unclear to her toward whom the gesture was directed. Juror 6, like Juror 11, answered in the affirmative as to her ability to be fair and impartial. The court then denied the motion for mistrial. 26 At the request of Tejeda's counsel, on the fifth day of trial, Tuesday, May 10, 2005, the court conducted a voir dire of the remaining jurors. None of the other jurors had seen the incident; all but one said that they had heard of it from Jurors 11 and/or 6. The jurors reported that they did not discuss the incident other than on the Friday morning before it was reported. 27 Each juror was asked whether he or she could be fair and impartial, and every one responded in the affirmative. While several of the jurors indicated that they thought the gesture was inappropriate, no juror expressed fear for his or her safety. Two jurors reported that the gesture had been unsettling or disconcerting for the jurors who had seen it. One juror stated that the reported gesture put pressure on the jury, but that the remedial action taken by the court had been appropriate. Another juror stated that there could be safety concerns, but after hearing of the court's order barring the gesturer from the courthouse, she stated that she was satisfied with her own safety. One juror reported that he knew nothing of the gesture. 28 Following the voir dire of the entire jury, Tejeda renewed his motion for a mistrial and also requested that the jury foreperson, Juror 11, be deemed an alternate so she would not participate in the jury deliberation. These motions were ultimately denied. 29 The jury returned a verdict of conviction. Thereafter, Tejeda filed a motion for new trial based on, inter alia, the throat-slitting incident. At that time, Tejeda did not argue that the purported error was a structural one, or that the court was required to apply a presumption of prejudice to the gesture. The court denied the new trial motion.
30
31 Tejeda argues that it is clear that the jury here was not impartial, despite the trial judge's finding to the contrary and the jurors' individual declarations that the incident did not render any of them unable to remain impartial in reaching a verdict. 32 Tejeda leaps from this purported factual certainty to an argument, presented for the first time on appeal, that this issue must be analyzed as structural error. Tejeda would like this to be so because in structural error cases the defendant is entitled to automatic reversal. We reject Tejeda's argument. 33 Structural error analysis has been constricted in its use to a limited category of claimed errors, none of which fits this case. The Supreme Court has held that it is structural error for a criminal defendant to be tried before a judge who has a financial interest in convicting him. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 535, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927). Tejeda infers from Tumey that his claim that a juror is biased must also be analyzed as a structural error. This is not a situation in which one or more jurors has a financial interest in convicting the defendant. We reject Tejeda's argument. The law is clear both that this is not the stuff of structural error and that Tejeda's jury bias claim is subject to a different standard of review. On review, the appellate court asks whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial. That standard gives deference to the trial judge, who is in the best position to evaluate the matter. 34 Mere error in the trial process itself is not structural error. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, ___ U.S. ___, ___- ___, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 2563-64, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006). Structural errors are reserved for cases where criminal defendants are denied basic protections which necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair such that no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-9, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Tejeda's claim of juror bias is not within this very limited class of cases. See United States v. Mackey, 114 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir.1997) (juror bias and misconduct claims are not structural errors). 1 35
36 On appeal, Tejeda also argues for the first time 2 that he is entitled to a presumption of prejudice under Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954). We hold that the Remmer presumption does not apply here. 37 In Remmer, the defendant learned after his conviction that a third party had attempted to bribe a juror to get a verdict favorable to the defendant, and he moved for a new trial. Id. at 228, 74 S.Ct. 450. The court had not informed defense counsel of the bribe, but had initiated an investigation of the bribe and had held an ex parte meeting with the prosecution. Id. The defendant's motion for new trial was denied. Id. at 229, 74 S.Ct. 450. The Supreme Court held that Remmer was not entitled to an automatic reversal, but rather to a hearing before the trial court, and that the jury tampering would be presumed to be prejudicial. Id. at 229-30, 74 S.Ct. 450. 38 There is an ongoing debate in the circuits about the limits on and the ongoing vitality of the presumption of prejudice rule announced in Remmer. Compare United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 532-33 (6th Cir.1984) (presumption of prejudice no longer exists), with United States v. Sylvester, 143 F.3d 923, 934 (5th Cir. 1998) (proper inquiry is whether likelihood of prejudice is high enough to assign to the government the burden of proving harmlessness), United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 497 (D.C.Cir.1996) (same), United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228, 238 (3d Cir.2001) (presumption applies when the extraneous information is of a considerably serious nature, such as when a juror is directly contacted by third-parties), United States v. Dutkel, 192 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir.1999) ([A] presumption of prejudice arises if a juror was subjected to coercion or bribery, and if this intrusion may have affected the juror in the exercise of his judgment.), United States v. Scull, 321 F.3d 1270, 1280 (10th Cir.2003) (prejudice presumed [w]hen members of a jury are exposed to extraneous information about a matter pending before [them]), and United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 173 (2d Cir.2000) (similar). As we discussed in United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d 278, 287 (1st Cir.2002), two later Supreme Court cases, United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-39, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), and Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-17, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982), narrowed the broad language in Remmer. 39 This court has already rejected defendant's argument that the Remmer presumption applies to all claims of juror bias resulting from extraneous contacts. See, e.g., Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 288-89; United States v. Gomes, 177 F.3d 76, 82-83 (1st Cir.1999); United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 260-62 (1st Cir.1990). 40 We employed the presumption of prejudice in United States v. Gaston-Brito, 64 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.1995), where a trial court summarily denied, without conducting any inquiry, a motion for mistrial made before the verdict. Id. at 13. We did so in the context of holding that a trial court is obligated to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether the communication was harmless. Id. (quoting United States v. O'Brien, 972 F.2d 12, 14 (1st Cir.1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Tejeda relies on Gaston-Brito to argue that given the jurors' expressions of fear and concern . . ., it [was] error to find that . . . Tejeda was not prejudiced by the throat-slitting gesture. 41 Gaston-Brito is inapposite. In Gaston-Brito, a cooperating witness was asked to identify the person who had threatened to kill his daughter if his wife did not turn over drug proceeds. A case agent seated at the prosecution table pointed to the defense table, possibly indicating to the jury that the defendants had made the threat, although no evidence established that. Id. at 12. The gesture at issue here is of a completely different nature. 42 There are other distinctions. As Gaston-Brito noted, the government created the problem there when a case agent for the prosecution made an inappropriate gesture conveying substantive evidence. Id. at 13. Since the jury could well think that the agent had inside information, there was a risk the jurors would consider the information during deliberations. Id. The court in Gaston-Brito said it was applying a heightened standard when the prosecution was responsible for improper ex parte conduct. 3 Id. Here, the gesture did not come from the prosecution and was not an effort to put evidence in front of the jury. We add that there are different considerations at play when a defendant attempts to vacate a conviction, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, on the basis that someone associated with the defense made an improper gesture to the jury. For example, we would not want to create an incentive for such gesturing by individuals associated with defendants.
43 Our usual standard of review once the trial judge has made an appropriate inquiry, and the one that we utilize here, is an abuse of discretion standard, which recognizes that the district court has wide discretion in deciding how to handle and how to respond to allegations of juror bias and misconduct that arise during a trial. United States v. Rodríguez-Ortiz, 455 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir.2006); see also United States v. Mikutowicz, 365 F.3d 65, 74 (1st Cir.2004); Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 286-87. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 291. 44 Where a colorable claim of jury taint surfaces before jury deliberations occur, our law describes the sequence of steps a trial judge should take. See id. at 289. The judge should investigate the allegation promptly, addressing whether the taint-producing event occurred, and if so, assessing the magnitude and extent of any prejudice caused. Id. The trial court has wide discretion in how it goes about this inquiry. Id. at 290. The district court, if faced with the issue initially post-verdict, may convene an evidentiary hearing, but it is not obligated to do so. Boylan, 898 F.2d at 258. 45 If the court determines that there is a taint-producing event and a significant potential for prejudice, the trial court should then examine whether prophylactic measures will alleviate the prejudice (and if so, take them), or whether the threat can otherwise be dispelled or disproved. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 289. The court may determine that no curative measures will suffice and grant a timely motion for a mistrial. Id. 46 Here, the court followed every step in the procedure. There is no realistic objection to the process it used. Rather, Tejeda's attack is on the court's conclusion that any potential prejudice had been adequately addressed. The court did not apply an incorrect legal standard, so we review its conclusion for abuse of discretion. 47 This case involves (1) a risk of a perception by a juror of an implicit threat from someone who might, in the juror's view, be associated with the defendant; and (2) the risk that this threat might influence the juror's ability to impartially evaluate the evidence. These risks are weighed against the individual jurors' own statements that they were not so influenced and the trial judge's findings of fact that the jurors could fairly and impartially reach a verdict. 48 The risks in this case are considerably weaker than those posed by the facts in Rodríguez-Ortiz, where we upheld a district court's denial of mistrial. 455 F.3d at 23-24. There, a juror reported he had received an explicit death threat related to the case. Id. at 24. On inquiry, the juror said he could remain impartial, and the court concluded he could do so. Id. Other circuits have likewise affirmed the denial of a mistrial when a juror was threatened but assured the court that he could remain impartial in deciding the case. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, No. 99-50381, 2000 WL 429704, at -2 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2000) (unpublished table decision) (mem.) (affirming denial of mistrial when spectator made gestures during closing arguments that made some jurors feel threatened); Leisher v. Conrad, 41 F.3d 753, 754-55 (D.C.Cir.1994) (affirming denial of mistrial when two jurors misinterpreted as menacing a gesture made by defendant outside of courtroom); United States v. Garner, No. 90-5613, 1991 WL 150788, at , 3 (6th Cir. Aug.6, 1991) (unpublished table decision) (per curiam) (affirming denial of mistrial when juror was threatened by men presumed to be affiliated with defendant who made noise like a gunshot outside the courtroom); United States v. Zelinka, 862 F.2d 92, 93, 94-96 (6th Cir. 1988) (affirming denial of mistrial when spectator who appeared to be associated with defendant made statement that it would be too bad if the elevator the jurors were boarding should crash, causing fear on the part of some of the jurors). 49 Tejeda argues that more than a single juror is involved, which increases the risk of taint. This, he says, necessarily requires a different result from that reached in Rodríguez-Ortiz. It does not. The implicit threat, while serious, was of a different nature than the direct threat in Rodríguez-Ortiz. Further, it is unclear here to whom the gesture was intended, and here there was a possible, but not direct, association between the threat and the case. 50 Importantly, the district court did not ignore the risk that one or more of the jurors could perceive this gesture as a threat or that a threat might impair impartiality. First, the court took immediate remedial action. The court had the spectator who was the source of the threat removed from the courtroom and informed the jurors not to be concerned. The elderly spectator was no longer present when the evidence connecting the red van to the defendant became stronger at trial, and at least some of the jurors were informed that the spectator was not permitted to be in the vicinity of the courthouse. Second, the court queried each juror about whether the throat-slitting gesture would render him or her unable to impartially evaluate the evidence. The court observed the demeanor of each juror and concluded that each could be impartial. 51 Nor did the court leave the incident for further conversation and musings among the jurors. The court instructed them not to discuss it, and, those who were later questioned said the jurors had complied with that instruction. Normally, if jurors say they have followed instructions, their statements are credited. Cf. Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 799, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001); Boylan, 898 F.2d at 263. 4 52 There are, of course, extreme cases in which jurors' responses will not be credited. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135-36, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) ([T]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extra-judicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. (citations omitted)). This is the argument that Tejeda makes— that the incident was so strongly and indelibly harmful that no instruction and no voir dire could cure it. Tejeda adds that the jurors' voir dire responses demonstrated that they would not be able to disregard the gesture in reaching a decision in the case. We disagree for the reasons stated above. 53 The district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of the throat-slitting gesture. Rather, it responded sensitively and correctly.