United States v. Ricky Lanier, 870 F.3d 546

Background

Ricky and Katrina Lanier were convicted of conspiracy and wire fraud for using two companies to obtain government set-aside construction contracts fraudulently; trial evidence showed the jobs were satisfactorily performed.
During jury deliberations, Juror 11 called Theresa Nelson, a state prosecutor and social acquaintance not involved in the federal case, to discuss the deliberations; Nelson later reported the call to the district judge.
Nelson told Juror 11 not to discuss deliberations and to alert the court if there was a problem; Juror 11 did not notify court personnel.
The jury had appeared divided and “angry” the morning of the call, yet returned a verdict shortly after the telephone contact.
Defendants requested permission to interview jurors and a new trial; the district court denied those requests and did not conduct any Remmer hearing or question Juror 11, other jurors, or Nelson under oath.
The Sixth Circuit held that because a juror intentionally sought outside input, and because the timing and apparent jury division created a plausible risk of prejudice, the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold a Remmer hearing; the convictions were vacated and the case remanded for such a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had to investigate extraneous contact between a juror and a third party	Prosecution: Nelson reported she refused to discuss the case, so no external influence occurred	Lanier: Juror 11 initiated contact seeking outside input; this raised a colorable claim of external influence requiring inquiry	Court: Remmer hearing required because juror intentionally sought outside input and circumstances (timing, jury division) presented an obvious potential to affect the verdict
Whether defendants were entitled to interview jurors and question Nelson under oath	Prosecution: No prejudicial external influence shown; district court acted within discretion to deny interviews	Lanier: Denial prevented fact-finding about extent and effect of juror’s communications	Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion; attorneys must be permitted to question Juror 11, other jurors, and Nelson at a Remmer hearing
Whether failure to hold a Remmer hearing mandates vacatur and remand	Prosecution: Trial court’s factual assessment justified denying hearing	Lanier: Failure to investigate prejudiced defendants’ right to an impartial jury	Court: Vacated convictions and remanded for a Remmer hearing; retained jurisdiction pending that hearing
Whether to resolve sentencing issues on appeal now	Prosecution: Sentencing should stand	Lanier: Raised sentencing challenges on appeal	Court: Declined to address sentencing because convictions were vacated; will consider sentencing if convictions are reinstated after the Remmer hearing

Key Cases Cited

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (trial court must investigate colorable claims of external influence on jury)
Remmer v. United States, 350 U.S. 377 (1956) (Supreme Court reviewing trial-court factfinding after remand for Remmer hearing)
United States v. Lloyd, 462 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of motion to investigate juror misconduct)
United States v. Davis, 177 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 1999) (Remmer hearing required when colorable extraneous influence is raised)
United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 1997) (Remmer hearing required when contacts are intentional or have obvious potential to influence jury)
United States v. Rigsby, 45 F.3d 120 (6th Cir. 1995) (same principle on intentional improper contacts)
United States v. Herndon, 156 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 1998) (Remmer hearing to afford defendants opportunity to establish bias)
United States v. Sylvester, 143 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) (retaining jurisdiction pending Remmer hearing)
Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (narrow exception to no-impeachment rule for jury statements showing racial bias)