United States v. Arthur Schlecht, 679 F. App'x 817

Background

Arthur John Schlecht convicted of attempting and conspiring to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).
After verdict, Schlecht moved for a new trial based on communications between several jurors and third parties (friends/spectators) during the trial.
Jurors reported conversations: one was approached by a defense witness who spoke about the weather; several noticed a spectator (described as a “black body builder”) who told jurors Schlecht was a “good guy” and tried to gauge juror sentiment.
The district court questioned jurors, gave a curative instruction drafted by the parties, and jurors twice stated they could remain impartial and had no reservations.
Schlecht also requested a jury instruction that would allow a good-faith defense based on reliance on advice of counsel; the district court refused, concluding Schlecht had not shown full disclosure to counsel.
Schlecht appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial and the refusal to give the proffered instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extrinsic contact with jurors required a new trial	Schlecht: juror contacts by friends/spectators created prejudice and a presumption of harm requiring a new trial	Government: contacts were fleeting, jurors were not influenced, curative instruction and juror assurances removed prejudice	Court: Presumption of prejudice arose but government rebutted it; contacts were harmless and no new trial required
Whether curative measures (questioning + instruction) cured potential prejudice	Schlecht: contacts created appearance he was operating behind the scenes and impaired impartiality; district court should have ordered stronger relief	Government: jurors ended contacts quickly, didn’t respond to comments, affirmed impartiality after instruction	Court: curative instruction and juror assurances sufficient; presumption rebutted; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether Schlecht was entitled to an advice-of-counsel/good-faith jury instruction	Schlecht: he relied in good faith on his attorney’s advice and should have that defense instructed	Government: Schlecht failed to show he fully and honestly disclosed all material facts to counsel, so instruction not warranted	Court: Refusal proper—Schlecht did not prove full disclosure; instruction not required and issue was substantially covered by other instructions
Whether refusal to give proposed instruction was reversible error	Schlecht: failure to give instruction seriously impaired his defense	Government: court’s instructions adequately covered good faith and lack of intent to defraud	Court: No reversible error—requested instruction not proven correct/applicable and jury was instructed on good faith and lack of intent

Key Cases Cited

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (presumption of prejudice from unauthorized communications with jurors)
United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) (discussing presumption and government’s burden to rebut juror-extrinsic-contact prejudice)
United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2011) (presumption that jurors follow curative instructions)
United States v. Dean, 487 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for refusal to give a proffered jury instruction)
United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (advice-of-counsel defense requires full disclosure of material facts to counsel)