United States v. Casanova, 3:25-cr-00104

Defendant George G. Casanova was tried before a jury on three misdemeanor counts: DUI, reckless driving, and unlawful entry upon a military installation.
During deliberations, the jury foreperson submitted multiple notes within minutes indicating that one juror (Juror No. 3) was refusing to deliberate or reconsider his position, in violation of court instructions.
The court conducted individual polling of jurors, during which Juror No. 3 gave conflicting answers regarding his ability to deliberate and follow instructions, eventually removing himself from jury deliberations.
The court excused Juror No. 3 for cause and replaced him with an alternate, after which the reconstituted jury convicted Defendant on all counts.
Defendant filed a Rule 33 motion for new trial, arguing his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial, unanimous jury was violated by Juror No. 3’s removal.

Issue	Casanova's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether excusing Juror No. 3 violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous, impartial jury	Juror was dismissed because of his views on the evidence, which is improper	Juror was dismissed for misconduct: refusing to deliberate and follow instructions, not because of his views	Excusing Juror No. 3 was proper; no basis to conclude removal was due to views on evidence
Whether good cause existed to remove Juror No. 3	No sufficient cause; juror was a holdout based on evidence, not deliberation failure	Good cause due to refusal to deliberate as shown by notes, timing, conflicting answers, and juror’s removal of himself	Sufficient good cause existed independent of views on guilt or innocence
Whether the court’s actions were consistent with Circuit precedent on juror removal during deliberations	Precedent (e.g., Laffitte) requires caution; removal here was not proper under similar facts	Laffitte is distinguishable; Juror No. 3's removal was for failure to deliberate, not substantive disagreement	Laffitte distinguishable; court properly exercised discretion under the facts
Whether a mistrial should have been declared instead of removing Juror No. 3	Mistrial should have been declared given the claimed causal link to evidentiary disagreement	Removal and substitution with alternate was the appropriate remedy	Substitution with alternate juror was appropriate; no basis for mistrial

United States v. Laffitte, 121 F.4th 472 (4th Cir. 2024) (sets standard for reviewing whether a juror was dismissed because of their views on the sufficiency of evidence)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020) (holds unanimity is required for criminal jury verdicts under the Sixth Amendment)
United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (juror’s refusal to deliberate is permissible ground for removal)
United States v. Baker, 262 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (upholds removal of juror who refused to deliberate and made up mind before deliberations began)
United States v. Brown, 823 F.2d 591 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (cannot excuse a juror if removal stems from their views on the sufficiency of evidence)