Ernesto Roberto Ramirez v. State of Indiana, 2014 Ind. LEXIS 344

Defendant Ramirez was tried for murder and criminal gang activity; a juror reported a neighbor’s claim of gunshots near her apartment the night before, leading to juror 282 being excused for potential bias.
The trial court interviewed jurors outside the jury; it denied Ramirez’s motion for mistrial, finding the incident was coincidental and not prejudicial.
Ramirez was convicted of murder and criminal gang activity, but acquitted on a criminal gang enhancement in a separate phase; he received a 62-year murder sentence and 2-year gang sentence, consecutive.
On appeal, Ramirez argued the trial court erred by denying mistrial and that the 62-year sentence was inappropriate.
The Indiana Supreme Court clarified the presumption of prejudice in jury taint cases, held no prejudicial linkage between juror 282’s incident and Ramirez’s case, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of mistrial and the sentence on appeal.
The concurrence by Massa, J. would apply a narrower Remmer-based framework and disagrees with the majority’s treatment of certain precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a rebuttable presumption of prejudice applies	Ramirez advocates for presumption under Currin/Remmer	State argues no linkage; no presumptive prejudice	Presumption applies only if taint relates to the case; Ramirez lacks link
What standard applies to taint when presumptions do not apply	Ramirez contends Currin two-part standard governs	State contends normal juror-misconduct standard suffices	If Currin not met, apply probable-harm standard; here not met
Whether the trial court properly addressed juror taint via Lindsey procedures	Ramirez argues procedures were inadequate	Court properly interviewed and advised jurors	Court acted within Lindsey framework; no mistrial warranted
Whether Ramirez is entitled to a new trial given juror 282’s conduct	Presence of taint obligates mistrial	No proven link to case; misconduct was simple	No new trial; conduct not gross or probable harm
Whether the sentence is appropriate given the findings	Appeals court should review for inappropriateness	Sentence within statutory range; affirmed	Sentence affirmed

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (presumption of prejudice historically recognized in extreme taint)
Currin v. State, 497 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 1986) (rebuttable presumption of prejudice from out-of-court juror contacts)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982) (burden to show prejudice; presumption not universal)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (presumption may apply in some intrusion cases; analysis turns on effect on deliberations)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1965) (extreme prejudice from juror association with state witnesses)
Yount v. Turner, 467 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 1984) (presumption where publicity biased jurors; later cases reconsider)
Woods v. State, 233 Ind. 320, 119 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. 1954) (prima facie prejudicial conduct by jurors and witnesses)
Kelley v. State, 555 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 1990) (prima facie prejudicial conduct standard; reliance on juror assurances)
May v. State, 716 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. 1999) ( prima facie prejudice for egregious juror conduct; irrefutable in limited cases)
Griffin v. State, 754 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2001) (presumption discussed but not applied where misconduct not serious)
Hall v. Zenk, 692 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2012) (Seventh Circuit on Remmer framework; supports preservation of prejudice concept)