United States v. Nix, 275 F. Supp. 3d 420

Background

Defendants Nix and McCoy were convicted after a five‑week trial (12 counts including Hobbs Act, firearms, narcotics); post‑verdict, they moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 alleging juror misconduct.
After verdict defense counsel discovered that Juror No. 3 (J.B.) had prior felony convictions that were not disclosed on his juror questionnaire or during voir dire; those convictions occurred when he was a teenager/young adult (1988, 1989).
Another prospective juror (T.P.) with undisclosed felonies was identified during selection and struck by the Government; defendants raised disparate treatment/racial concerns.
The court held an evidentiary hearing where Juror No. 3 testified; the court found he gave inconsistent and sometimes false testimony about his record, but displayed limited education, poor comprehension, and nervousness.
The central legal framework applied: McDonough two‑part test — (1) whether the juror failed to answer honestly a material voir dire question, and (2) whether the truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
The court concluded Juror No. 3 had given false answers about his criminal history (and some other matters) but did not lie to secure a seat nor was there actual, implied, or inferable bias sufficient to require a new trial; Rule 33 motions based on Juror No. 3 were denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Defendants)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether juror nondisclosure of felony convictions requires a new trial under McDonough	Juror No. 3 lied on questionnaire/voir dire about felony convictions; his presence tainted impartiality and mandates a new trial	Juror No. 3’s failures were due to confusion, poor recall, or embarrassment, not intentional deceit to obtain a jury seat; no bias shown	Denied — court found false answers but no evidence juror lied to secure seat and no demonstrated bias meeting McDonough prong two
Whether juror’s other nondisclosures (prior jury service, home burglary, relatives’ convictions) satisfy McDonough	These omissions show material dishonesty and risk of partiality	Many omissions were immaterial, misunderstood, or genuinely forgotten; would not have supported for‑cause challenge	Denied — omissions not deliberate/material such that they would cause excusal for cause
Whether felon status alone requires per se reversal	Felon juror statutory ineligibility (JSSA) and felon status means automatic bias and new trial	Felon status alone is not per se constitutional error; McDonough analysis governs post‑verdict claims	Denied — court rejects per se rule; must show bias under McDonough
Whether defendants would have challenged juror for cause if truth known at voir dire	Defendants contend they would have sought removal; failure to disclose deprived them of fair jury	Record showed defendants had not pursued deeper criminal‑history questioning and reacted differently when T.P. was revealed; likely would not have challenged for cause	Court finds defendants likely would not have challenged; in any event, no valid basis for for‑cause excusal shown

Key Cases Cited

McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (establishes two‑part test for juror nondisclosure: honesty and materiality/for‑cause basis)
United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (juror’s deliberate, pervasive lies to obtain a jury seat can warrant new trial; bias may be presumed)
United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993) (intentional falsehoods at voir dire are not automatic grounds for reversal absent shown bias)
United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (applies McDonough; requires both dishonesty and that truthful answer would support challenge for cause)
United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (discusses actual, implied, and inferred bias standards)
United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1989) (juror’s deliberate concealment may reflect partiality and support new trial)
United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (felon status alone does not imply bias; no per se rule)