United States v. Dehertogh, 696 F.3d 162

Carucci sold a Boston condo to Gefke, assuming responsibility and giving Gefke a $47,000 promissory note; payments were not timely.
Gefke, in financial trouble, enlisted Michael Milby and Patrick Dehertogh (with Michael Lee) to intimidate Carucci to collect the debt.
Jan 29, 2010: Lee, Milby, and Dehertogh confronted Carucci at his office with threats; Carucci wrote two $1,000 checks.
Feb 1, 2010: Lee and Milby confronted Carucci at the Four Seasons; Carucci surrendered a watch and fled; later, FBI investigated with covert recordings.
All four defendants were indicted in March 2010; Gefke and Lee pled guilty and testified; Milby pled guilty; Dehertogh went to trial and was convicted on two counts, later sentenced to five years.
On appeal, Dehertogh challenged juror-taint handling and jury instructions; court upheld the trial court’s handling as adequate and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror taint handling adequate?	Dehertogh argues mistrial warranted; jurors feared Milby present.	Milby’s presence tainted jury; proper instructions could not cure.	Abuse of discretion; precautions adequate; no reversible error.
Aiding and abetting jury instruction proper?	Government theory of lookout/muscle supported conviction.	Defense theory not equally presented; instructions favorable to defense.	Instruction permissible; fair presentation of both sides; no reversal.
Plain-error review of unpreserved claims?	Multiple unpreserved claims entitled to plain-error review.	No plain error; no prejudice shown.	Plain-error standard not met; no relief.

Tejeda, 481 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2007) (juror intimidation handling approved; curative measures adequate)
Rodríguez-Ortiz, 455 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion review for juror-taint rulings)
Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242 (1st Cir. 2001) (latitute when evaluating trial-court handling of taint)