Opinion ID: 605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Allegation of Juror Misconduct

Text: About three weeks before the jury verdict, which was returned on December 17, 2007, a photographer for the New York Daily News, Stephen Barcelo, was sitting in his car in the parking lot of the federal courthouse in Central Islip, New York, where the trial was taking place, at about 5:00 p.m. His car was in the first row of parked cars, where Barcelo often parked in order to photograph the defendants and the lawyers in the case as they arrived and departed. On this occasion, Barcelo's car window was partially open. He observed a group of people leave the courthouse. Based on the time of day and the fact that he recognized some of them, he believed the group to be the Sabhnani jurors. Two women from the groupwomen he did not recognizepassed by his car door, speaking inaudibly. A minute or two later, he heard from behind his car a woman's voice loudly saying the words guilty, guilty in a laughing manner. Barcelo was then facing forward in his car in a dark parking lot, and he did not see who made the statement. Barcelo related this incident to fellow photographer Mary McLaughlin of the New York Post and to a reporter from the Daily News, Richard Weir. Kieran Crowley, a reporter for the New York Post, overheard Barcelo's statements to McLaughlin and related them to Mahender's defense counsel on or about December 19two days after the jury verdict. The Sabhnanis, contending that the incident demonstrated that the Sabhnani jurors had engaged in impermissible deliberations before the close of evidence, moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 and also for a hearing at which jurors would be required to testify. The district court held a hearing at which Barcelo appeared. Barcelo testified that because the parking lot was dark that night, he could not and did not recognize the two women as members of the Sabhnani jury, but merely assumed that they were. Moreover, Barcelo admitted that as of the day of his testimony, he probably couldn't identify any member of the jury because he did not regularly visit the courtroom during the trial, but mostly observed groups of people coming in and leaving the courthouse. Barcelo acknowledged that there were other people in the parking lot that evening, including spectators and jurors from other trials, and that, because he did not witness the conversation, he could not say for certain who made the statement guilty, guilty or even whether it was one of the two women he had initially seen. Barcelo stated he could not hear any of the woman's other wordsand so apparently could not say whether she was discussing a case, a movie, or her own failure to go to the gym. He could not identify her voice, or provide any additional context for her statement. Judge Spatt denied the defense motion for a new trial and also the motion for a hearing that would include juror testimony. See United States v. Sabhnani, 529 F.Supp.2d 384 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (district court opinion denying motion for new trial and evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct). The judge accurately noted that Barcelo's evidence fell far short of establishing that any misconduct had occurred. The judge expressed doubt at Barcelo's ability to identify and recognize members of the Sabhnani jury in light of his testimony that he did not visit the courtroom for any significant period of time. Sabhnani, 529 F.Supp.2d at 389. The court noted that Barcelo could not testify to the context in which the guilty, guilty statement was made, could not identify the person who made the statement, and had admitted during his testimony that he only assumed the speaker was a member of the Sabhnani jury. Id. at 389-90. Noting that the facts asserted were vague and uncertain, the judge concluded that the testimony and affidavits [were] insufficient to justify a further hearing with testimony from the jurors, and certainly not a new trial. Id. at 390. The judge further concluded that, even if the speaker had been shown to be a member of the Sabhnani jury and to have been referring to the case, [o]ne juror's potentially out-of-context, single word comment, does not demonstrate that the jurors prematurely deliberated [and] does not demonstrate that the juror would be unreceptive to opposing arguments or that any juror failed to participate in deliberations in good faith. Id. at 393. The judge noted based on his own observations that the Sabhnani jury had carefully and intently followed all of the testimony and the presentation of the evidence with close attention. Id. at 391. We review a trial judge's handling of alleged jury misconduct for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 463 (2d Cir.2004). A trial judge has broad flexibility in responding to allegations of such misconduct, particularly when the incidents relate to statements made by the jurors themselves, rather than to outside influences. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 803 (2d Cir. 1994). We have stated, moreover, that district judges should be particularly cautious in conducting investigations into possible jury misconduct after a verdict, and that such investigations are only warranted when there is clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence, that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has occurred which could have prejudiced the trial of a defendant. United States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 197 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir.1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The tenuousness of the Sabhnanis' argument is self-evident from Barcelo's testimony, and we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to pursue this matter further. This case presents no clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence of juror misconduct, and accordingly the district court properly determined that no further investigation was merited and that the motion for a new trial should be denied. See Vitale, 459 F.3d at 197. [15]