United States v. Talman Harris
881 F.3d 945
6th Cir.2018Background
- Talman Harris, a former stockbroker, was convicted by a jury on one count of conspiracy, one count of obstruction of justice, and three counts of wire fraud; sentenced to 63 months imprisonment plus restitution.
- Scheme: Harris and co-conspirators recommended issuer stock to clients in exchange for undisclosed kickbacks; FINRA investigated and Harris and co-conspirator Guy Durand gave a fabricated "sold watches" explanation and sent letters repeating it.
- After arrest, Durand testified that Harris urged him to "stick with" the false story; Durand was the sole government witness on the obstruction charge.
- At trial the district court excluded a recorded, prior statement of Durand (proffered for impeachment) as impermissible extrinsic evidence under Rule 608(b).
- The court admitted government summary exhibits (including trade blotters and summaries) over Harris’s Rule 1006 objections and gave a jury instruction that a fiduciary duty can arise between a broker and client under particular facts.
- After trial Harris learned a juror’s live-in girlfriend had viewed his LinkedIn profile during the trial period; district court refused a Remmer hearing or further inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Harris's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior recorded statement for impeachment (obstruction count) | District court wrongly excluded Durand’s prior recorded statement under Rule 608(b); it was a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 613 and should be admitted | The recording was unauthenticated extrinsic evidence and improper character impeachment | Reversed obstruction conviction; court abused discretion by applying Rule 608 instead of allowing impeachment under Rule 613 and remanded Count 5 for new trial |
| Admissibility of summary exhibits (Rule 1006) | Some exhibits were themselves summaries; government failed to produce underlying records so summaries should be excluded | Government produced underlying bank and clearing records reasonably early; some exhibits were business-record trade blotters, not summaries | Affirmed admission: trade blotters admissible as business records and summaries met Rule 1006 timing; no abuse of discretion |
| Jury instruction on stockbroker fiduciary duty | Instruction improperly told jury broker must disclose compensation whenever recommending stock; prejudicial error requiring new trial on all counts | Instruction required a factual finding that a fiduciary relationship existed before any duty to disclose; properly limited | Affirmed: instruction properly explained that a fiduciary duty depends on the factual relationship and was not misleading |
| Remmer hearing for possible juror exposure to extraneous information | Harris presented a colorable claim (juror’s girlfriend viewed Harris’s LinkedIn and may have learned prejudicial FINRA info); court should have investigated or held hearing | Evidence speculative; presumption jurors followed instructions; no colorable showing requiring Remmer process | Vacated judgment re: Remmer refusal; district court abused discretion by not providing a meaningful opportunity to investigate; remanded for Remmer hearing; if prejudice found, new trial on all counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (any private communication to a juror about a pending case is presumptively prejudicial and requires investigation)
- United States v. LaVictor, 848 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2017) (broad definition of inconsistency for prior inconsistent statements)
- United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104 (6th Cir. 1998) (five-factor framework for Rule 1006 summaries)
- United States v. Skelly, 442 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2006) (no general fiduciary duty inherent in ordinary broker/customer relationship; duty may arise from particular facts)
- United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2002) (harmless-error standard requiring court to be able to say verdict not substantially swayed by error)
- United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2005) (district court must investigate colorable claims of extraneous influence)
- Griffin v. Finkbeiner, 689 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Rigsby, 45 F.3d 120 (5th Cir. 1995) (when credible allegation of extraneous influence exists, court must investigate sufficiently)