97 A.3d 80
D.C.2014Background
- A T-Mobile phone with a dead battery belonging to Dickens was introduced and later examined by the jury during deliberations.
- The jury accessed Dickens’s phone contents, including emails, texts, call logs, and contacts, after it was not admitted with the trial evidence.
- The court conducted multiple inquiries over two days to determine what the jurors accessed and whether prejudice occurred.
- Counsel debated whether to grant a mistrial or issue a limiting instruction; the court ultimately gave a limiting instruction and denied mistrial on the final occasion.
- Appellant Jackson argued the court should have conducted a more thorough inquiry and granted a mistrial; the court found the limiting instruction sufficient.
- The convictions for kidnapping while armed and armed robbery were sustained, with Dickens not convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in managing juror exposure to the phone contents | Jackson asserts the court failed to thoroughly inquire into prejudice. | Jackson contends more inquiry or a mistrial was necessary due to taint. | No abuse; limiting instruction suffices. |
| Whether denial of a mistrial was proper given taint from phone contents | Jackson maintains mistrial was necessary to cure prejudice. | Dickens argues misapplication of limited prejudice and potential link to McMichael was not fatal. | Denial of mistrial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Al-Mahdi v. United States, 867 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 2005) (courts discretion in evaluating juror taint and need for inquiry)
- Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680 (D.C. 1993) (juror exposure to extraneous evidence; limiting instructions)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982) (presumption of prejudice; need for fair remedy)
- Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040 (D.C. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for mistrial)
- Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695 (D.C. 1990) (court should determine extent of juror bias with deference to findings)
- Ransom v. United States, 932 A.2d 510 (D.C. 2007) (review of denial of motion for mistrial due to non-admitted evidence)
- Thompson v. United States, 45 A.3d 688 (D.C. 2012) (mistrial as a severe remedy; when to avoid it)
- Lewis v. United States, 930 A.2d 1003 (D.C. 2007) (jury presumed to follow limiting instructions)
- Parker v. United States, 601 A.2d 45 (D.C. 1991) (limitations on juror inquiry and prejudice assessment)