United States v. Burhoe, 875 F.3d 55

Appellants Joseph Burhoe and John Perry were convicted at jury trial on charges including improperly serving as a union representative in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 504(b) (Count 29).
After the verdict, a juror left a voicemail for Burhoe's counsel saying she was "one of the jurors" and wanted to discuss "some interesting things that went on . . . in the jury room" and asked counsel to call if allowed.
Appellants moved to have counsel contact the juror or for the court to question the juror in counsel's presence; the district court denied both requests.
On appeal, appellants argued (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove the statutory requirement of willfulness for Count 29, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to investigate the juror's post-verdict message.
The First Circuit panel denied rehearing, holding the evidence supported a finding of willfulness and the voicemail did not present a colorable allegation of juror misconduct warranting inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of willfulness under 29 U.S.C. § 504(b)	The government contends evidence showed Burhoe and Perry were aware Burhoe was disqualified and acted willfully in representing the union.	Appellants argue they believed Burhoe could perform limited tasks (e.g., fill labor calls) despite the prohibition, so no willful statute violation.	Court: Evidence that Burhoe solicited work and acted as a representative while coordinating with Perry was sufficient for a jury to find willfulness.
District court's refusal to investigate juror's post-verdict voicemail	Government: voicemail was ambiguous and did not present specific, plausible misconduct requiring inquiry.	Appellants: voicemail suggested "interesting things" in jury room; court should have allowed contact or inquiry to probe possible taint affecting verdict.	Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; voicemail was speculative and did not raise a colorable allegation of juror misconduct.

NLRB v. Brown & Root, Inc., 206 F.2d 73 (8th Cir. 1953) (purpose of a petition for rehearing is to call the court's attention to overlooked material matters of law or fact)
United States v. Paniagua Ramos, 251 F.3d 242 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard of review for district court's denial to investigate jury taint)
United States v. Zimny, 846 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2017) (defendant must make a colorable or plausible allegation of juror misconduct to trigger inquiry)
United States v. Mikutowicz, 365 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) (same principle regarding burden to allege juror misconduct)
United States v. Kepreous, 759 F.2d 961 (1st Cir. 1985) (extraordinary situations required to permit attorney post-verdict contact with jurors)