United States v. Collins
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 379
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Superseding indictment (Dec 4, 2008) charged Collins with conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and false SEC filings.
- Trial commenced May 13, 2009; deliberations began July 1, 2009.
- On July 8, jurors reported difficulty and the court issued a note: “You, not the judge, are the sole judges of the facts.”
- July 9, the court did not disclose the contents of a jury-note and held an ex parte interview with Juror 4.
- During the ex parte interview, the court issued a supplemental instruction stressing resolution of the matter.
- July 10, defense sought interviews with Juror 9; the court declined; a partial verdict was reached on five counts; judgment entered March 24, 2010; Collins was sentenced to seven years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins was deprived of the right to be present. | Collins argues failure to disclose the Note and ex parte interview violated his presence rights. | GOVERNMENT contends no reversible error given emergency context. | Yes, the district court violated the right to be present. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mejia, 356 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2004) (disclosure of jury notes and counsel participation required; ex parte replies discouraged)
- United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 1997) (right to be present extended to jury communications and counsel participation)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) (necessity of disclosure of jury communications to counsel)
- Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35 (1975) (counsel must be present when addressing jury messages)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (ex parte jury contact can violate due process; risk of error)
- Shields v. United States, 273 U.S. 583 (1927) (supplementary instructions should be in open court with counsel present)
- United States v. Krische, 662 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1981) (harmless-error review for right-to-present violations requires fair assurance verdict was not swayed)
- United States v. Ronder, 639 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1981) (counsel input desirable; ex parte actions risk prejudice)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 545 F.2d 829 (2d Cir. 1976) (deliberations timing not determinative of prejudice)
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (narrowly tailored juror interviews; counsel present)