Court Opinion

ID: 9410291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 19:00:49.816389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:56.566041
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20439       Document: 00516826741           Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                                                                   FILED
                                                                               July 19, 2023
                                     No. 21-20439                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk

   Ricky Dockery,

                                                                Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

   Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

                                                               Defendant—Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:18-CV-966

   Before King, Elrod, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          A jury reached a verdict in favor of the Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice (“TDCJ”), rejecting claims of racial discrimination brought by an
   employee, Ricky Dockery. Dockery appealed. Before ruling on his appeal,
   we ordered the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to address
   Dockery’s allegation of improper outside influence on the jury. Dockery v.
   Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. 21-20439, 2022 WL 3097849, at *3–4 (5th

          *
            This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. The
   opinion supplements the court’s opinion in this case of January 6, 2023.
Case: 21-20439      Document: 00516826741           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                     No. 21-20439

   Cir. Aug. 3, 2022). After the hearing uncovered no evidence of such
   influence, we affirmed the judgment. Dockery v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just.,
   No. 21-20439, 2023 WL 119641, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023). Dockery now
   argues that the district court’s fact-findings were in error.
          We begin with a summary of our earlier order that identified the
   factual issue the district court was to explore. Post-verdict, a juror signed an
   affidavit alleging that another juror informed everyone during deliberations
   that the latter’s wife gave her opinion about why TDCJ’s failure to promote
   Dockery was not discriminatory. The affidavit asserted that the juror quoted
   his wife as saying “how important a ‘management pipeline’ was to an
   employer,” implying that promoting those in the pipeline, which Dockery
   was not in, was reasonable. On remand, the district court conducted an
   evidentiary hearing. It found that no juror had discussed such a conversation
   during deliberations, that the one juror’s affidavit was not an accurate
   description of what occurred, and that there was no improper extrinsic
   influence on the jury. We then affirmed the district court’s judgment that
   upheld the jury’s verdict.
          After our decision, Dockery has argued that the district court
   identified the wrong juror as the one who allegedly discussed the trial with
   his wife. That argument caused us to have the parties explain how the former
   jurors who would be questioned were identified. The parties agree that the
   district court allowed each party to select the witnesses who would provide
   testimony at the hearing. In order to identify witnesses, the district court
   provided the parties with the original jury questionnaires consisting of the
   jurors’ names, marital statuses, and professions. According to Dockery (the
   record does not contain the questionnaires), the jury questionnaires showed
   there were three male jurors on the jury and that each was married. TDCJ
   requested the district court query a specific male juror. Dockery did not seek
   to have any additional male juror questioned, but he did request that the

                                          2
Case: 21-20439      Document: 00516826741          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                    No. 21-20439

   former female juror who signed the affidavit that started this inquiry also be
   called to testify. Further, the district court had each counsel submit
   questions they wanted the court to ask.
          At the hearing, the district court questioned the two jurors. The male
   juror denied that he spoke to his wife about the trial. After the court
   completed questioning that juror, it asked counsel if there were any further
   questions. There were none.
          The affiant juror testified next. She stated that the other juror at the
   hearing was not the one who commented on a discussion with his wife. The
   affiant gave a physical description of the juror who allegedly had made the
   statements. Further, in describing the juror, the affiant testified that “[h]e
   was also the juror who I think we couldn’t continue the trial on Friday,
   because he had somewhere to be, so we had to leave early for him.” TDCJ’s
   attorney then informed the court that the first juror questioned, the one who
   denied having made the relevant statements, was the one who had the trip:
   “He actually had a conversation with the Court about a trip where he had to
   fly to Las Vegas that evening, and we cut court short on Friday so that he
   could make that trip.” The affiant responded, “I don’t remember.” The
   affiant stated “I don’t remember” or “I don’t [] recall” several times in
   responding to questions. She did remember that the juror who spoke to his
   wife was named “Christian,” but there was no juror named Christian. One
   of the trial attorneys for TDCJ, though, was named Christian.
          We required the evidentiary hearing so the parties could present
   witnesses on the claim. One juror provided evidence in support, but the only
   juror who was questioned on whether he made such statements denied
   having done so. Our order did not limit the number of former jurors to be
   questioned, nor does the record indicate the district court limited the parties
   to selecting only one witness each. We see nothing in the description of the

                                         3
Case: 21-20439      Document: 00516826741            Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                      No. 21-20439

   procedures the district court followed that would have prevented Dockery
   from, for example, seeking the testimony of all three male, married jurors.
          The district court provided Dockery a reasonable opportunity to
   develop a record of what had occurred during jury deliberations. There was
   no clear error in the district court’s finding that the affiant-juror’s allegations
   lacked credibility, and there was no other evidence to support the claim about
   outside influence. We will not grant another opportunity for the facts to be
   developed.
          The judgment of the district court rejecting Dockery’s claims of
   discrimination is AFFIRMED. The mandate of the court shall issue
   immediately.

                                           4