Thomas v. People
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 40
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Thomas appeals his second-trial convictions for third-degree assault, using a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence, simple assault, and threatening a witness.
- He sought a new-trial hearing based on alleged juror misconduct; the trial court denied the hearing request.
- The juror-misconduct claim came from an attorney-affidavit stating a juror claimed the panel was predisposed and discussed killings during deliberations.
- A juror allegedly informed the attorney that the jurors had already made up their minds and that other jurors spoke about the defendants’ alleged guilt.
- The trial court relied on Rule 606(b) to deny an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate court remands for a limited evidentiary hearing to determine actual misconduct and prejudice.
- In 2010, the U.S. VI Supreme Court later amended Rule 606(b); the court acknowledges the transition from URE to FRE and remands for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct. | Thomas argues juror misconduct facts warranted a hearing. | People contend no hearing is required given the affidavit’s credibility issues. | Remand for an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct. |
| Whether Rule 606(b) permitted inquiry into extraneous information after trial. | Thomas’s claim falls within extraneous information influencing the verdict. | Rule 606(b) precludes juror testimony about deliberations, but allows certain outside-influence inquiries. | Rule 606(b) permits limited inquiry into extraneous information; erroneous reliance on pretrial denial; remand for hearing. |
| Whether counsel’s handling of juror-contact issues constitutes ineffective assistance, given remand. | Thomas alleges trial counsel failed to follow procedural steps and notify the court. | Remand renders ineffective-assistance claim moot. | Moot; remand for evidentiary hearing cures the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Swinton, 75 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1996) (extraneous prejudicial information may warrant an evidentiary hearing)
- United States v. Angulo, 4 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1993) (juror misconduct requires a hearing to determine prejudice)
- Dowling (Government of the VI v. Dowling), 814 F.2d 134 (3d Cir. 1987) (duty to determine whether trial should be aborted when juror misconduct suspected)
- United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 1993) (remedial hearing required to assess impact of juror exposure to information)
- Resko, 3 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. 1993) (trial court must determine whether misconduct occurred and its prejudice)