United States v. Montes, 628 F.3d 1183

Montes and Scarmazzo were convicted of continuing criminal enterprise, manufacturing, aiding and abetting, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
Evidence showed they openly operated a Modesto marijuana dispensary with multi-year, high-volume sales and numerous employees.
During deliberations, Juror No. 3 reportedly read a San Francisco Chronicle online summary about marijuana policy; article itself was not admitted into the jury room.
The district court held a hearing, allowed review of juror declarations, but did not compel live juror testimony under Rule 606(b).
The court found the extraneous material non-prejudicial and denied a new-trial motion; Appellants appealed the ruling on hearing necessity and prejudice.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding no evidentiary hearing was required and no reasonable possibility the information affected the verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	USA argues hearing not mandatory given evidence and factors.	Montes/Scarmazzo contend an evidentiary hearing was necessary to assess prejudice.	Not required; district court did not abuse discretion.
Whether extraneous information could have affected the verdict	USA contends no reasonable possibility of prejudice given evidence and timing.	Montes/Scarmazzo argue possible prejudice from deliberation discussions.	No reasonable possibility of prejudice; information non-rationally connected to guilt.
Whether the district court properly denied the new-trial motion	USA asserts no prejudicial impact from the extraneous information.	Montes/Scarmazzo claim error in considering without full hearing.	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion.

United States v. Dutkel, 192 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 1999) (hearing appropriate for juror misconduct inquiries; not mandatory in all cases)
United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary decisions)
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; standard for reviewing trial court rulings on evidence)
United States v. Bagnariol, 665 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1981) (extraneous information must have material connection to issues)
Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2000) (juror misconduct implicates Confrontation Clause; assess prejudice)
Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1986) (five-factor test for evaluating prejudice from extraneous information)
United States v. Keating, 147 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1998) (prejudice assessment is an objective inquiry)
Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc; prejudice assessment considerations for extraneous information)
Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1980) (prejudice analysis in jury deliberations; limited impact of inadmissible material)
Littlefield, 752 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1985) (non-issue extraneous material lacking material connection to issues)
Angulo, 4 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1993) (evidentiary hearing not mandatory; consider content and credibility)
Dickson v. Sullivan, 849 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1988) (ultimate prejudice question remains after factor analysis)