Garrett v. United States
20 A.3d 745
D.C.2011Background
- Garrett was convicted of ADW, PFCV, CPWL, UF, UA, and UP in the District of Columbia.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether they could consider a witness's muttered utterance not in response to a question.
- The trial court answered “yes” without identifying the utterance.
- Defense objected to the lack of inquiry and moved for reconsideration; the court denied.
- The parties agreed the substance of the utterance was unknowable from the record.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not inquiring about the utterance referenced in the jury note? | Garrett argues the court failed to determine whether the utterance was extrinsic evidence. | United States contends no further inquiry was required as the note did not conclusively indicate extrinsic evidence. | Yes; court abused discretion and remanded. |
| Was the error harmless under Chapman or Kotteakos standards? | Garrett contends the error was prejudicial and not harmless. | United States argues a less stringent standard applies and the error could be harmless. | No; prejudice not negated under either standard; remand ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 883 A.2d 146 (D.C.2005) (juror extrinsic-evidence inquiry required when plausible)
- Davis v. United States, 510 A.2d 1051 (D.C. 1986) (trial court must address extrinsic-information concerns)
- Medrano-Quiroz v. United States, 705 A.2d 642 (D.C.1997) (right to an impartial jury; need to investigate plausible bias)
- Ransom v. United States, 932 A.2d 510 (D.C.2007) (trial court should inquire into extrinsic evidence exposure)
- Wilson v. United States, 380 A.2d 1001 (D.C.1977) (error when jurors witness arrest without hearing)
- Alcindore v. United States, 818 A.2d 152 (D.C.2003) (ambiguous jury notes require inquiry to resolve interpretations)
- Murchison v. United States, 486 A.2d 77 (D.C. 1984) (encourages explicit jury-inquiry when note is ambiguous)