Opinion ID: 491050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Police Report

Text: 22 Courts have applied varying legal standards to determine whether the jury's use of or exposure to extrinsic material requires a new trial. E.g., United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1252 (6th Cir.) (trial judge should determine whether jury actually used material and whether there was prejudice to the defendant; trial court's decision will be reviewed under abuse of discretion standard), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 114 (1985); United States v. Camporeale, 515 F.2d 184, 188 (2d Cir.1975) (evidence was so prejudicial that the defendant was denied a fair trial); United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 865, 869 (5th Cir.1975) (new trial required if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant was prejudiced); United States v. Marx, 485 F.2d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir.1973) (if there is the slightest possibility that harm could have resulted from the jury's viewing of unadmitted evidence, then reversal is mandatory.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 986 (1974); Edwards, supra, 637 P.2d at 887 (reasonable possibility standard). 23 In the instant case, neither the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals nor the district court applied the slightest possibility standard set forth by our Court in Marx, supra, 485 F.2d at 1184. Rather, the Oklahoma court followed the reasonable possibility standard of Howard, supra, 506 F.2d at 869, and Edwards, supra, 637 P.2d at 887. The district court applied the so prejudicial standard of the Second Circuit in Camporeale, supra, 515 F.2d at 188. 24 We agree with appellant that the applicable standard in this Circuit is the slightest possibility standard of Marx. We hold, however, that, under any standard, appellant's claim fails. The state trial court found that the police report was not used until the sentencing part of the jury deliberations. Absent the applicability of one of the exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d) (1982), that finding of fact must be accorded the presumption of correctness. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2630 (1986); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 547 (1981). Appellant has advanced no persuasive argument that any of those exceptions apply. We therefore accept the correctness of the state trial court's finding that the jury did not consider the police report during the determination of guilt phase of the jury deliberations. Any conceivable prejudice was cured by the new trial as to sentencing. It is clear that appellant's claim fails even under the stringent standard of Marx. 25 Accordingly, we hold that, upon the facts as found by the Oklahoma trial court, to which we defer, appellant's rights were not violated by the presence of the police report in the jury room during deliberations.