United States v. Juror Number One
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146768
| E.D. Pa. | 2011Background
- Juror Number One allegedly engaged in unauthorized electronic communication about the trial during deliberations after dismissal.
- Court instructed jurors not to discuss the case or use electronic media to discuss it, including emails, during the trial.
- Juror Number One was dismissed on June 7, 2011 and advised not to discuss the case until completion.
- That night she emailed Juror Eight and Juror Nine expressing guilt and opinions about defendant’s guilt and wishing to hear others’ views.
- Juror Eight’s response indicated sharing the message with the group; Juror Eight was voir dire, then dismissed; Juror Nine remained on the panel.
- Court referred the matter for contempt and the Government filed an Order to Show Cause seeking criminal contempt proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Juror One’s emails violated court orders | Juror One willfully disobeyed orders not to discuss case matters until completion. | Juror One believed the orders had some permissible scope given employment reasons and timing. | Yes; willful disobedience established criminal contempt under § 401(3). |
| Civil vs criminal contempt and burden of proof | Criminal contempt appropriate to punish past disobedience; beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies. | Contempt procedures and burdens should align with civil contempt unless criminal intent is shown. | Criminal contempt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt; rights afforded as for criminal proceedings. |
| Sentencing framework for criminal contempt | Courts may punish with fine or imprisonment, but not both; consider § 3553(a) factors in absence of Guidelines. | Sentencing should reflect guidelines/classification concerns and statutory limits; imprisonment capped at six months when applicable. | Fine of $1,000 imposed; imprisonment not imposed. |
| Sixth Amendment jury-trial right on potential imprisonment | If term exceeds six months, jury trial is required for criminal contempt. | Contempt classification and maximum penalty in this context do not mandate a jury trial given penalties here and governing precedents. | Juror One’s sentence (fine only) did not require a jury trial; constitutional protections observed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taberer v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 954 F.2d 888 (3d Cir.1992) (defines civil versus criminal contempt and coercive versus punitive purposes)
- Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1958) (requires willful disobedience for criminal contempt under § 401(3))
- Hicks ex rel. Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1988) (right to due process protections in criminal contempt)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (constitutional protections apply in non-summary criminal contempt)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (due process protections in criminal contempt proceedings)
- United States v. Hand, 863 F.2d 1100 (3d Cir.1988) (juror misconduct and restitution context for contempt)