Court Opinion

ID: 9475942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:43:15.137841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:23.889848
License: Public Domain

ROSENN, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with parts I and II of the majority opinion to the extent those sections conclude that the defendant was not entitled to an individual in camera interrogation of each of the jurors, I cannot agree with the court’s conclusion in part III that the defendant is nevertheless entitled to yet a third new trial. Accordingly, I respectively set forth my reasons for dissenting.
On April 2, 1985, after a prior trial had resulted in a hung jury, Reuben Dowling was convicted on each of nine counts relating to an armed bank robbery. The court sentenced Dowling to a total of 75 years, at least ten of which must be served without *142parole, probation, suspension, or reduction by good behavior.
At the beginning of the second day of Dowling’s three day trial, defense counsel informed the trial court that a local newspaper, the St. Croix Avis, contained an article about the trial that revealed a number of unsavory facts about the defendant. Accordingly, at both the beginning and end of the second day of this second trial the court admonished the jury to disregard news media accounts, and in the morning asked the panel whether any of them had read the offending article. None of the jurors responded that they had.
At the beginning of the third day of trial, after all of the evidence had been presented to the jury, but prior to closing arguments, the court informed counsel of the note it received from alternate juror Diane Delgado, which is quoted in the majority opinion. Maj. op. at 136. Thereupon the parties agreed to excuse Carmencita Richardson, the juror identified in Delgado’s note as having “listened to the news and read the newspaper,” as well as having known something about the case before trial.
After dismissing Richardson, the court undertook an individual interrogation of Delgado at sidebar, which included a colloquy with counsel:
THE COURT: Miss Delgado, I’ve received a note from you which I’ve brought to the attention of the gentlemen.
The first question I have for you is you have alternate number 1 who would ordinarily step into the seat of juror number
8. Yet you indicated that you heard a juror that’s been excused make certain statements. Do you believe that you can still be fair to all the parties and render a verdict based solely on the evidence. THE JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Have you received any information that has caused you to develop any opinion other than from the evidence how this case should be decided? THE JUROR: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied, Mr. Reich?
MR. REICH: We are satisfied.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied, Mr. Chamble?
MR. CHAMBLE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The second question has to do with your own letter. Miss Richardson has been excused. The question is whether or not you have witnessed Miss Richardson supply to other jurors any information which would tend to prejudice any other juror?
THE JUROR: In that ease I am not too sure. She had mentioned that in front of all of the jurors and they were very uncomfortable about the situation so— THE COURT: Then I’m going to make a general inquiry of the jurors.
Tr. at 323-24. The court thereupon made a lengthy in banc inquiry of the jurors designed to elicit a response from any juror who might have been prejudiced, and upon receiving no response followed the inquiry with an offer to discuss the matter privately at sidebar.1 The court specifically stated *143that it did not wish to belabor the point and thereby develop prejudice. Id. at 327.
Based on the above, it is apparent that defense counsel clearly consented to the court’s decision to have Delgado, the juror who rang the bell on the danger of the Richardson taint, and who obviously was most sensitive to and aware of Richardson’s statements, replace Richardson. Delgado’s letter and subsequent responses to questioning indicate that others had the same exposure. Therefore, (1) if Delgado was acceptable as an untainted juror; (2) if the trial judge specifically inquired of the other jurors whether they could serve impartially, and gave them the opportunity to discuss the matter privately with him; and (3) if, as the majority concedes, individual interrogation was not required; then how can there be any justifiable complaint now that the other jurors were impermissibly tainted? Yet, the majority nevertheless concludes that despite warnings to disregard news media accounts twice given the jurors the day before, defense counsel’s satisfaction with Delgado, the district court’s finding that belaboring the point might actually create prejudice, and the district court’s lengthy in banc examination and offer to discuss the matter privately, error occurred at this very late stage in the proceedings which justifies a third trial. I do not agree.
As the majority correctly notes, in United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 65-67 (3d Cir.1971), in which the exposure was to actual news accounts, and not, as here, to a tainted juror, this court rejected, on the facts, a claim that the trial judge erred in failing to solicit from prospective jurors the content of each of the newspaper articles to which he or she had been exposed. The court recommended, however, that in the future such questioning should be conducted wherever there exists a significant possibility of exposure to potentially prejudicial material. Maj. op. at 136, n. 1. Addonizio, however, involved the jury selection procedure provided for in Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(a), where the focus and thrust are to avoid potential prejudice. The instant case, by contrast, involves a motion made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 47 after the case had virtually concluded and was about to go to the jury, and the focus was therefore on actual prejudice.
In United States v. D'Andrea, 495 F.2d 1170, 1173 n. 8 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88 (1974), again in contrast to the report on an article read by an excused juror, a juror and an alternate juror actually read a newspaper article about the defendant during the course of a criminal trial. In upholding the district court’s decision to question the jury in banc rather than individually, the court distinguished United States ex rel. Doggett v. Yeager, 472 F.2d 229 (3d Cir.1973), relied upon heavily by the majority, because in D Andrea only one rather than several articles were involved, the taint came late in the trial, the district court specifically found that extensive individual interrogation was likely to cause more harm than good, and the defense never sought individual interrogation of the jurors. Id. at 1172-73, 1173 n. 8.
As this court observed in D Andrea, the crucial question is the degree of prejudice created by the improper publicity “since a new trial is required only when substantial prejudice has occurred.” Id. at 1172 (footnote omitted). Unlike D Andrea, the jurors who sat in this case did not read the newspaper article, but only heard a statement concerning it from Richardson. The statement they heard was no more than Delgado had heard. The court and counsel for the defendant believed that Delgado, the most directly affected juror, could serve without being prejudiced and the judge’s interrogation adequately demonstrated that the others could do so as well. Nothing in the judge’s interrogation of Delgado, which satisfied defense counsel, indicated that Richardson’s statement was so *144fundamentally prejudicial that actual prejudice could be presumed as a matter of law. See id. at 1172 n. 5. Further, as in D Andrea, the trial court feared that further interrogation would “only emphasize the incident and that ultimately it was likely to do more harm than good.” Id. at 1173 n. 8.
Therefore, the trial judge made a sufficient inquiry into the jurors’ ability to serve impartially and the defendant has not shown any prejudice to him. Accordingly, I perceive no error on the part of the trial court and would affirm the judgment.

. The court instructed the jury, in relevant part, as follows:
THE COURT: ... I want to make sure I understand and that the attorneys understand that none of you have come upon any information which has been received outside of the evidence in this case which would cause you to have developed any feelings one way or the other about the case. Have any of you received any information in this matter, that has not been part of the evidence in the case which you consider has rendered you incapable of giving a fair trial to either side in this case. If so, would you raise your cards. The important thing about this case, ladies and gentlemen, is that this matter must be decided only on the basis of the evidence that is presented to you and the instructions of the Court.
It cannot be decided on the basis of anything outside of this courtroom or anything that you heard, any rumors, any thing of any kind____
Are there any of you who at this point who are unable to meet your commitment in that respect by not raising your card. The attorneys are going to take it then that each of you, if you remain as jurors in this case would decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence that has been received in the case. Are any of you in any position where you do not feel that you cannot do that?
[No response.]
*143THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have asked a series of questions. Are there any of you who would care to talk to the Court and the attorneys privately about this matter at side bar.
[No response.]
Tr. at 324-26, 327.