United States v. Mehta, 919 F.3d 175

Defendants Gaurav Mehta and Isha Mehta (and Mary Opoka) were tried for marriage fraud (8 U.S.C. §1325(c)) and related immigration fraud; convictions were returned and probation imposed.
During trial the judge met ex parte with five jurors who reported feeling observed/lingered-at by two defendants when entering/exiting the courthouse; the judge characterized the behavior as “disturbing” and arranged court security without prior notice to counsel.
The judge later summarized the jurors’ concerns to counsel (omitting some of his verbal characterizations) and instructed defense counsel to keep their clients away from jurors; no inquiry was made of the full jury about impartiality.
In the jury charge the judge told jurors they “may consider the fact that a defendant’s interest in the outcome of the case creates a motive for false testimony.” Defense did not object at trial to that language.
Isha requested a specific instruction that marriage fraud requires entering into marriage “without intending to live together as husband and wife”; the judge gave a broader instruction requiring proof that the defendant would not have entered the marriage but for avoiding immigration laws.
The Second Circuit concluded the ex parte meeting and the credibility instruction contravened Circuit law, undermined the presumption of innocence and the fairness of the proceedings, vacated the convictions, and remanded for retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex parte meeting with jurors and failure to follow jury-communication procedures	Government defended judge’s actions as efforts to ensure juror safety and comfort	Defendants argued meeting was improper, counsel denied opportunity to respond, and meeting risked prejudice	Court held the ex parte conference violated Collins procedures, was clear error, and risked prejudice requiring relief
Jury instruction that a defendant’s interest creates motive to lie	Gov conceded the instruction violated Circuit law but argued error was harmless	Defendants argued the instruction undermined presumption of innocence and credibility findings	Court held instruction was clear and obvious error (forbidden by Gaines/Brutus) and prejudicial when combined with the ex parte meeting; convictions vacated
Marriage-fraud instruction wording (intent to live together language)	Government argued the court’s instruction adequately required proof that marriage was entered to evade immigration laws	Isha argued omission of “without intending to live together” allowed conviction despite legitimate motives	Court held the instruction was legally sufficient and within the court’s discretion; no reversible error on that point
Standard of review for unpreserved instructional error	—	—	Court applied plain-error framework (Olano) and found the instructional error clear, affected substantial rights, and undermined fairness

United States v. Collins, 665 F.3d 454 (2d Cir. 2012) (procedures for handling jury inquiries; forbids ex parte responses)
United States v. Mejia, 356 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2004) (disclosing jury messages to counsel and record requirements)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (per curiam) (ex parte judge–juror contact not always unconstitutional but circumstances matter)
United States v. Gaines, 457 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts should not instruct that a testifying defendant has a personal interest that creates motive to lie)
United States v. Brutus, 505 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2007) (such instructions undermine presumption of innocence irrespective of balancing language)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (articulation of the presumption of innocence)
Sher v. Stoughton, 666 F.2d 791 (2d Cir. 1981) (curative measures can mitigate prejudicial juror contacts)
United States v. Ronder, 639 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1981) (reversal where court failed to discuss jury notes with counsel)
United States v. Russo, 74 F.3d 1383 (2d Cir. 1996) (trial court has discretion in wording of jury instructions)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (courts must guard factors that undermine fairness of fact-finding)