150 A.3d 784
D.C.2016Background
- Poth was acquitted of second‑degree murder while armed but convicted of voluntary manslaughter while armed.
- Post‑trial, defense learned Juror 061 was a registered sex offender with a felony record and Juror 703A had been a complainant in prior assaults, conflicting with voir dire responses.
- Trial court denied a new‑trial motion, ruling the defense failed to exercise due diligence in uncovering the juror misconduct.
- The appellate court held Rule 33’s time limit is non‑jurisdictional and waived by the government due to extensions granted to the defense.
- The court concluded an evidentiary hearing on juror bias was required, remanding for merits evaluation and potential corrective action.
- The opinion notes potential issues on remand include jurors’ availability and Brady disclosures, and contemplates possible ineffective‑assistance implications if applicable, without deciding them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct. | Poth: due‑diligence rule improperly barred hearing. | Government: due diligence required to file new trial; discretion rests with trial court. | Yes; trial court erred; remand for an evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether Rule 33’s filing deadline is jurisdictional and preserved by extensions. | Poth: time limit is non‑jurisdictional; extensions valid. | Government: time limit is jurisdictional and preserved by objections. | Not jurisdictional; government waived by extensions; remand procedures follow. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (truthful voir dire required; bias inquiry standard)
- Young v. United States, 694 A.2d 891 (D.C. 1997) (hearing to probe juror bias when misrepresentations occur)
- Smith v. United States, 984 A.2d 196 (D.C. 2009) (jurisdictional vs. claim‑processing timing; reliance on later Supreme Court cases)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2005) (jurisdictional status of compliance rules questioned by Supreme Court)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timing statutes in criminal procedure context)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (U.S. 2013) (due‑process considerations in timing and procedure)