Court Opinion

ID: 9409988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 00:00:33.372596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.754602
License: Public Domain

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.
                                  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
                                 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
                                   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