65 F.4th 777
5th Cir.2023Background
- Rodney P. Gemar, a Hammond, LA police officer deputized as a DEA taskforce officer, was tried and convicted on charges of conspiracy, conversion of property by a federal officer, and removal of property to prevent seizure (2009–2016 conduct).
- During voir dire the court asked whether jurors knew Gemar or his family; Juror 27 did not disclose any relationship and did not answer follow-up qualification questions.
- Two months after the verdict counsel for Gemar learned Juror 27 had a longstanding personal relationship with Gemar’s wife (high‑school acquaintance, attended the Gemars’ wedding, social‑media contact through indictment). Gemar’s wife submitted a declaration and supporting exhibits.
- Gemar moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial, alleging actual and implied juror bias and seeking an evidentiary hearing; the district court denied the motion without holding a hearing and imposed concurrent 27‑month sentences.
- The Fifth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by ruling without an evidentiary hearing given the showing of a concealed, significant relationship and remanded for a hearing into Juror 27’s possible bias; other challenges were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Gemar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of proffer statements | Statements during proffer were admissible at trial | Admission was improper and prejudicial | Not reached on appeal (remanded for juror‑bias hearing) |
| Motion for new trial for juror bias / denial of evidentiary hearing | District court followed precedent; hearing not required; Gemar did not explicitly request a hearing | Juror 27 concealed a significant relationship with Gemar’s wife, requiring an evidentiary hearing and, if bias proven, a new trial | Fifth Circuit: district court abused discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing; remanded for hearing |
| Sentencing enhancement | Enhancement appropriate | Enhancement improper | Not reached on appeal (remanded for juror‑bias hearing) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dejean, 988 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2021) (recognizing right to impartial jury under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982) (allegations of juror partiality ordinarily require a hearing)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (trial court must hold hearing on juror tampering with all parties present)
- Hatten v. Quarterman, 570 F.3d 595 (5th Cir. 2009) (juror‑bias claims are ordinarily addressed in a hearing where judge examines juror)
- United States v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing is abuse of discretion; sufficiency of showing to warrant a hearing varies by facts)
- United States v. Mahmood, 820 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (motions for new trial may often be decided on affidavits without hearing, but unique circumstances justify hearings)
- United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (false juror statements about significant matters can warrant an evidentiary hearing)
- United States v. Tucker, 137 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 1998) (a concealed relationship of great significance can entitle defendant to a hearing)