958 F.3d 331
5th Cir.2020Background:
- Defendants Laura and Mark Jordan were tried on federal charges (conspiracy, honest-services wire fraud, bribery) arising from Laura Jordan’s tenure as Richardson, Texas mayor.
- During deliberations a juror (Juror #11) told the judge she was too upset to convict; the judge conducted two ex parte interviews with her and did not excuse her.
- After the guilty verdicts, the judge learned from law clerks that a Court Security Officer (CSO) had spoken to a juror during a deliberation break, urging the juror to set aside emotion and vote her conscience and not to worry about punishment.
- The Jordans moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, arguing juror outside influence by the CSO, improper ex parte contact, and Juror #11’s impaired condition; the Government argued a hearing was required before granting relief.
- The district court granted a new trial based on the law clerks’ contemporaneous memorandum describing the CSO’s comments but did not hold an evidentiary hearing; the Government appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the law clerk memo and declining a hearing, and that the CSO’s comments likely prejudiced the jury.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Jordans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court must hold an evidentiary hearing when credible allegations of outside jury influence arise | A bright-line rule requires a hearing; denying one is an abuse of discretion | No bright-line rule; trial judge has broad discretion and may rely on reliable, contemporaneous chamber records | No abuse of discretion: hearing not required here given reliable law-clerk memo and balancing of disruption vs. benefit |
| Whether the law-clerk memorandum could support granting a new trial (hearsay/admissibility) | Memo is hearsay and insufficient to grant a new trial without live testimony | Memo was contemporaneous, prepared by neutral court staff, and reliable enough for the court to act | District court permissibly relied on the memo; appellate court affirmed without deciding general admissibility rules |
| Whether the CSO's comments were prejudicial or harmless/duplicative of jury instructions | CSO’s comments were innocuous, defense-friendly, and echoed the judge’s instructions | Comments urged jurors to disregard punishment, arguably favored conviction, and carried weight because of CSO’s official role | Comments were sufficiently likely to prejudice the jury to warrant a new trial |
| Whether the judge’s ex parte interviews with Juror #11 required reversal | Ex parte contacts were improper and compounded the problem | Ex parte interviews were limited, disclosed to parties in substance, and not the basis for granting a new trial | District court rejected ex parte claim; appellate court affirmed that ex parte meetings did not require reversal in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mix, 791 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 2015) (framework: defendant must show likely prejudice; government must show no reasonable possibility of influence)
- United States v. Sylvester, 143 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) (discusses when hearings are required for jury tampering allegations)
- United States v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1150 (5th Cir. 1995) (trial court must balance disruption vs. prejudice when deciding to hold a hearing)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (remand for hearing where record lacks information about alleged outside influence)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1966) (comments by court officers can carry undue weight and prejudice a jury)
- United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2019) (reiterates beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard relevant to assessing improper jury influence)
- United States v. Bishawi, 272 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2001) (hearing required where the record is void of specific information about the outside influence)