It's difficult to reopen a criminal case on the basis of alleged juror misconduct

Have you ever spoken to jurors following the trial? There are few conversations more interesting than post-trial juror interviews, where you can learn what went right and wrong at trial. If you listen carefully, you can improve your trial lawyering by taking the jury's feedback seriously. Sometimes, these conversations yield information that prompts a losing party to ask the court for a new trial on the basis of previously-undisclosed jury misconduct. That happened in this case.

The case is United States v. Baker, decided on August 8. The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs. Five weeks after the jury verdict, Juror No. 10 left a voice mail for defendant's trial counsel, stating that the jury talked about the case throughout trial even though the trial court told the jury not to do so and to keep an open mind. The juror also said one juror said he knew defendant was guilty as soon as he saw him in the courtroom during jury selection. When defendant's counsel asked the trial court for permission to interview the jurors to see if they engaged in misconduct, the trial court denied that application, sending this case to the Court of Appeals, which upholds the trial court's ruling.

Courts do not easily re-open cases based on allegations of juror misconduct. To quote the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, litigants need "a damned good reason" for doing this. The allegations in this case gave defendant's lawyer something to work with, as it suggests the jury ignored the trial court's directive not to discuss the case during trial (a standard instruction) and that one juror racially-profiled the defendant as a drug dealer at first sight.

But Juror No. 10 said nothing about the content of the mid-trial discussions. Not every comment among jurors about the case will violate the court's directive, and we don't know if the jury talked about guilt or innocence. Even if premature deliberations did take place, the rules generally prohibit jurors from impeaching their verdicts by testifying about their deliberations. As for the other allegation -- that a juror knew defendant was guilty from the start -- that is not a clear statement about racial stereotypes, distinguishing this case from Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017), where the Supreme Court ruled the defendant got an unfair trial on the basis of a juror's racial prejudice. In this case, any inference this was a racial statement is speculation, and we assume the juror in question took seriously the trial court's order at the start of trial the the jurors had to "remain true to their oath," allowing the defendant to start the trial with a "clean slate."