66 F.4th 11
1st Cir.2023Background:
- The SEC sued Henry B. Sargent for securities fraud; after a ten-day trial a jury returned a unanimous verdict against Sargent.
- The clerk read the verdict and then polled the jury collectively (jurors answered in unison "Yes").
- Sargent's counsel requested an individual juror poll; Judge Young denied the request and excused the jurors, later acknowledging the denial violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 48(c) and partially recusing on the remedy issue.
- Judge Stearns ruled that denial of an individual juror poll under Civil Rule 48(c) is per se reversible and certified the question for interlocutory appeal; the SEC appealed to the First Circuit.
- The central legal question: whether denial of the right to individually poll jurors under Rule 48(c) automatically requires a new trial (per se reversible) or must be reviewed for harmlessness under Rule 61.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sargent) | Defendant's Argument (SEC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a timely request to individually poll jurors under Fed. R. Civ. P. 48(c) is per se reversible or subject to harmless-error review under Rule 61 | Civil Rule 48(c) mirrors Criminal Rule 31(d); Miranda and subsequent First Circuit precedent treat denial as per se reversible, so a new trial is required | Harmless-error rule in Civil Rule 61 controls; civil errors should be assessed for prejudice (burden on complaining party) and civil rights/errors differ from criminal context | Affirmed: First Circuit treats Civil Rule 48(c) like Criminal Rule 31(d); denial of individual juror poll is per se reversible error under controlling circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1958) (recognizing ancient right to individual juror polling in criminal cases and holding denial is per se reversible)
- Ira Green, Inc. v. Mil. Sales & Serv. Co., 775 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2014) (noting civil and criminal polling rules are virtually identical and suggesting same treatment)
- Verser v. Barfield, 741 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating district court's refusal to conduct timely jury poll is ground for a new trial)
- United States v. F.J. Vollmer & Co., 1 F.3d 1511 (7th Cir. 1993) (supports per se reversible rule for failure to poll in criminal cases)
- Virgin Islands v. Hercules, 875 F.2d 414 (3d Cir. 1989) (same)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009) (held denial of peremptory challenges is subject to harmless-error review)
- Fulminante v. Arizona, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (discussing structural errors that defy harmless-error analysis)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (held alternate-juror Rule violation may be harmless depending on participation)
- Cabral v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 998 (1st Cir. 1992) (treated allowance of alternate juror participation in civil trial as per se reversible)