Opinion ID: 4448072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Orie’s objections fail

Text: Orie challenges the decision upholding the mistrial on five grounds. Not one succeeds. 12 First, she criticizes the trial court’s decision to halt jury deliberations and seize the questioned exhibits after speaking only with the prosecution. But even if that is what happened, there is nothing wrong with that. When they learn of possible misconduct, judges often tell juries to stop deliberating without first telling counsel. E.g., United States v. Bristol-Mártir, 570 F.3d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 2009). To resolve the forgery allegation here, the trial court needed the challenged exhibits, which the jury had. And there is no reason to think that asking for a pause caused incurable harm. The trial court told the jury only that “there is a legal matter before the Court” and warned the bailiff to retrieve the exhibits without talking to anyone. App. 1541a. Besides, there was no significant ex parte communication.