988 F.3d 284
6th Cir.2021Background
- During deliberations in 2015 Juror 11 called a friend (a state prosecutor, Teresa Nelson) and reported a “problem with the deliberations”; Nelson reported that call to the district court but the court did not promptly notify the defendants.
- Four days before a scheduled Remmer hearing Juror 11 texted Nelson indicating she had “looked online” about the case and asking about the hearing; Nelson reported those texts to the court but the court again failed to timely inform the Laniers.
- The district court initially ordered preservation but delayed compelling production; when Juror 11 later brought her phone and laptop the court’s IT staffer and law clerk (non‑forensic personnel) took screenshots rather than performing a forensic image; the juror’s Chrome history showed a manual deletion dated Feb. 7.
- The court’s judge and law clerk communicated ex parte with a court‑appointed expert and adopted search parameters over the defendants’ objections; the court also refused forensic access to the phone for months.
- Juror 11 ultimately discarded/traded in her phone months after the preservation order and had disabled Google web‑history, leaving deleted texts and browsing data unrecoverable; the district court denied a new trial.
- The Sixth Circuit held the defendants were denied a “meaningful opportunity” to prove juror bias, reversed, ordered a new trial, and directed reassignment to a different district judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Remmer investigation | Lanier: court deprived them of a meaningful opportunity to prove extraneous influence by failing to notify them of post‑trial texts and by delaying preservation/forensic exam | Gov: the hearing and questioning of jurors satisfied Remmer; screenshots and later forensics were sufficient | Court: district court abused discretion; investigation was constitutionally inadequate and prejudicial to defendants |
| Preservation and discovery of electronic evidence | Lanier: court should have promptly preserved and forensically imaged phone/computer and allowed defense access to recover deleted data | Gov: court's handling and eventual forensic steps were adequate; no showing of recoverable exculpatory data | Held: delays and non‑forensic screenshots allowed destruction/deletion of data, depriving Lanier of meaningful opportunity |
| Ex parte communications with court expert and appointment scope | Lanier: ex parte consultations and adoption of expert’s limited parameters (over defense proposals) prejudiced defendants | Gov: consultations and scope decisions were within court discretion | Held: ex parte contacts and unexplained narrowing of scope were troubling and contributed to inadequate investigation |
| Appropriate remedy and reassignment | Lanier: new trial and reassignment due to procedural failures and appearance of partiality | Gov: no new trial necessary; remediation possible without reassignment | Held: new trial ordered and case reassigned to another district judge to preserve appearance of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (establishes presumptive prejudice for unauthorized juror contacts and duty to investigate)
- Oswald v. Bertrand, 374 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2004) (Remmer inquiry must be reasonably calculated to resolve doubts about juror impartiality)
- United States v. Lanier, 870 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2017) (prior mandate vacating convictions and ordering Remmer hearing)
- Ewing v. Horton, 914 F.3d 1027 (6th Cir. 2019) (defendant entitled to constitutionally meaningful Remmer hearing)
- Herndon v. United States, 156 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 1998) (district court must give defendant meaningful opportunity to show extraneous influence)
- United States v. Zelinka, 862 F.2d 92 (6th Cir. 1988) (allocation of burden in Remmer context in Sixth Circuit)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (factors governing reassignment of cases on remand)