United States v. Esso
684 F.3d 347
2d Cir.2012Background
- Esso and six co-defendants were indicted for conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud and bank fraud related to a mortgage-fraud scheme (2006–2007) involving GuyAmerican Funding Corp.
- Esso, a loan officer at GuyAmerican, recruited borrowers and helped submit false loan applications with inflated incomes and misrepresented residency plans.
- Trial occurred August 9–26, 2010; the government presented evidence of scheme through false information submitted to lenders.
- Deliberations began August 25, 2010; jury asked to take the indictment home to read after initial deliberations.
- The district court allowed taking the indictment home with strict instructions not to discuss or research, and reminded that the indictment is not evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taking the indictment home violated fair-trial rights | Esso argues it undermines collective deliberation. | Esso contends home reading risks external influence and misweighting. | No constitutional error given proper limiting instructions. |
| Whether taking home indictment is allowed with safeguards | Indictment is a government‑sponsored narrative requiring caution. | Lectures caution suffice to prevent prejudice. | Permissible with strong limiting instructions; not structural error. |
| Effect of home-reading on jury deliberation process | Home reading disrupts jury’s collective deliberation. | Private contemplation can supplement deliberation. | Private thinking allowed; no evidence juries violated instructions. |
| Risk of outside influence from home-delivered indictment | Increased risk of family influence and independent research. | Cautionary instructions mitigate risk. | Risk acceptable given instructions and presumption jurors follow them. |
| Scope of appellate review of jury-home indictment practice | Practice risks unfair trial. | Discretionary trial-management tool with caution. | Affirmed conviction; not a general endorsement of practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Giampino, 680 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1982) (indictment may be given to jurors with limiting instructions)
- United States v. Press, 336 F.2d 1003 (2d Cir. 1964) (indictment may be given to jurors for deliberations with cautionary instructions)
- United States v. Rosario, 111 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 1997) (strong presumption jurors follow court’s instructions about materials)
- United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (indicates jurors follow limiting instructions; no automatic prejudice)
- People v. Ledesma, 140 P.3d 657 (Cal. 2006) (jurors may think about case privately; not error)
- United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2005) (notes risk when tangible evidence is in jury’s possession)