State v. Berrios, 320 Conn. 265

Defendant Orlando Berrios was convicted of first-degree robbery after a jury trial; conviction followed a high-speed pursuit and victim identification; defendant sentenced to 15 years plus special parole.
During trial a juror (J) reported that the defendant’s mother approached him outside the courthouse and made a comment questioning a witness’s veracity; J said he did not respond and later told other jurors.
The trial court individually voir dired jurors, excluding the defendant’s mother, and each juror assured the court their impartiality was unaffected; defendant moved for mistrial which the court denied.
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) Remmer’s presumption of prejudice applies to third‑party communications with jurors and (2) the state failed to rebut that presumption (i.e., failed its heavy burden to show no reasonable possibility of prejudice).
The Connecticut Supreme Court (Robinson, J.) held Remmer’s presumption remains good law for external, extrajudicial communications about the matter being tried but concluded the state met its heavy burden here; the denial of the mistrial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Berrios)	Held
Whether Remmer’s presumption of prejudice still applies to third‑party communications with jurors	Remmer limited by later Supreme Court decisions; inquiry should focus on actual prejudice and defendant bears burden to prove it	Remmer presumption remains valid for extrinsic, tampering communications and shifts a heavy burden to the state to prove harmlessness	Court held Remmer presumption remains good law for external communications about the case and can be triggered when defendant makes a prima facie showing
Whether the state carried the heavy burden to rebut the Remmer presumption here	State argued jurors’ credible, unequivocal assurances and trial‑court credibility findings established no reasonable possibility of prejudice	Defendant argued juror J withheld critical details and familial relationship made the contact especially prejudicial, contaminating jurors	Court held trial court reasonably credited jurors’ assurances; state met its heavy burden and denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (private communication with juror about pending matter is presumptively prejudicial; government bears heavy burden to prove harmlessness after hearing)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (remedy for juror partiality is a hearing where defendant can attempt to prove actual bias; courts should assess effect of intrusion)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (noted there may be cases where intrusion is presumptively prejudicial but ultimate inquiry is whether intrusion affected deliberations/verdict)
State v. Rodriguez, 210 Conn. 319 (1989) (applied Remmer presumption in Connecticut jurisprudence; discussed state’s burden to rebut extrinsic influence)
United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (Second Circuit: extra‑record information is presumed prejudicial; government may rebut by showing harmlessness)