United States v. Renee Pratt
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19824
5th Cir.2015Background
- Renee Gill Pratt, former Louisiana legislator, was convicted (after a second trial) of RICO conspiracy; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- After appeal, it was revealed that USAO attorneys (notably AUSA Salvador Perricone and First Asst. Jan Mann) anonymously posted disparaging comments on nola.com about matters involving the Jefferson family and Pratt.
- Perricone posted many critical, sometimes racially charged, comments during the period of related prosecutions; he was not on Pratt’s trial team. Mann posted two comments after Pratt’s first appeal was pending.
- Pratt moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 based on newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and sought an evidentiary inquiry into juror exposure and any supervisory knowledge or cover-up.
- The district court held a limited questionnaire-based inquiry of two jurors who reported using nola.com; they reported no exposure to the comments, and the court found no evidence the verdict was tainted and denied a new trial.
- Pratt appealed, arguing the prosecutors’ anonymous online comments and related leaks warranted a presumption of juror prejudice and thus a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial anonymous online comments warrant a presumption of juror prejudice requiring a new trial | Pratt: Perricone’s and others’ disparaging anonymous posts created public prejudice and, combined with alleged cover-up/leaks, so infected the prosecution that prejudice should be presumed | Government/District Ct: Comments were anonymous, low-profile, mostly by an AUSA not on the trial team; limited inquiry showed jurors were not exposed; no cover-up tying misconduct to Pratt’s trial | Affirmed: No presumption of prejudice; misconduct too remote/attenuated to infect verdict |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying a Rule 33 new-trial motion based on fairness grounds | Pratt: Extraordinary prosecutorial misconduct and related leaks undermine confidence in verdict and justify relief under Rule 33’s interest-of-justice standard | Government: Rule 33 is disfavored; defendant must normally show actual prejudice; limited evidentiary inquiry dispelled taint concerns | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether related misconduct in other cases (e.g., Bowen leaks/intimidation) supports presumption here | Pratt: Misconduct across related prosecutions contributed to a campaign prejudicial to Pratt by association | Government: No evidence leaks/comments were targeted at Pratt or affected her trial; remote association insufficient | Affirmed: Misconduct in other cases does not justify presumption absent direct connection to Pratt’s trial |
| Whether Brecht/Bowen establish a broad exception to require new trial regardless of demonstrated prejudice | Pratt: Relies on Brecht/Bowen for exception where especially egregious prosecutorial misconduct or pattern may obviate showing of actual prejudice | Government: Those cases are exceptional and fact-specific; Bowen involved taint-team commenter, other serious prosecutorial/FBI misconduct and government obfuscation not present here | Affirmed: Exception is narrow; facts here do not meet that high threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (in unusual, especially egregious cases, error may warrant relief even without proof of substantial influence)
- United States v. Bowen, 799 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming new trial where prosecutors’ anonymous posts combined with extensive other misconduct and government obfuscation)
- United States v. McRae, 795 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2015) (no presumption of prejudice from anonymous, low-profile postings with no demonstrated trial connection)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (presumption of prejudice limited to extraordinary pretrial publicity that manifestly taints proceedings)
- United States v. Poole, 735 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2013) (new trial is to avoid injustice, not merely to punish government contempt)
- United States v. Wall, 389 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for denial of Rule 33 motions)