United States v. Zimny
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1215
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Zimny ran Ivy Admit, solicited roughly $675,000 from the Chows in 2008 for alleged "development contributions" to U.S. schools but instead misappropriated the funds; civil suit and later federal indictment followed.
- Indictment charged Zimny with multiple counts including wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions, false tax returns, and bank fraud; jury trial lasted 13 days and returned guilty verdicts on most counts.
- A blog post ("Shots in the Dark") about the Chows' civil suit accumulated hundreds of often inflammatory anonymous comments about Zimny before and during the criminal trial.
- After verdict, an anonymous blog comment claimed to be from a juror (Juror No. 8) and indicated the jury had been split; the district court questioned Juror No. 8, who denied discussing the case or seeing the blog during service.
- Subsequently an additional anonymous comment—claiming to be a juror—asserted that Juror No. 8 had "spout[ed]" the blog to other jurors "since day one" and that other jurors told her to "stfu." Zimny asked the district court to question other jurors; the court refused and denied reconsideration.
- On appeal Zimny argued the district court’s inquiry into juror misconduct was inadequate; the First Circuit agreed that further investigation was required as to the additional-juror comment and remanded for inquiry (but did not order a new trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of district-court inquiry into alleged juror misconduct | Zimny: court failed to adequately investigate evidence that jurors were exposed to prejudicial extraneous information and engaged in premature deliberations | Government: district court reasonably questioned Juror No. 8 and need not probe further based on anonymous postings | Court: initial inquiry of Juror No. 8 was reasonable, but the additional anonymous juror comment created a colorable claim requiring further inquiry; remand for investigation ordered |
| Credibility of Juror No. 8 and need to question other jurors | Zimny: Juror No. 8’s testimony was unreliable and other jurors should be questioned | Government: Juror No. 8’s sworn testimony was credible; anonymous sources unreliable | Court: district court implicitly credited Juror No. 8 after extensive questioning—reasonable as to that phase—but subsequent credible anonymous comment altered the calculus requiring additional inquiry |
| Weight to give anonymous internet comments as triggers for inquiry | Zimny: anonymous comment claiming juror status and giving trial-specific details was strong evidence meriting investigation | Government: anonymity undermines reliability; district court had no obligation to act on anonymous posts | Court: anonymity alone does not bar inquiry where the anonymous post credibly indicates the author was a juror and alleges specific, prejudicial misconduct |
| Remedy if further misconduct is shown | Zimny: inadequate inquiry requires vacatur and new trial | Government: denial of new trial was proper absent proven prejudice | Held: remand for district-court investigation (factfinding and prejudice assessment); new trial not automatic — district court to decide after inquiry; appellate jurisdiction retained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 675 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing district court's inquiry and discretion to fashion investigation)
- United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242 (1st Cir.) (duty to probe nonfrivolous jury-taint claims)
- United States v. Connolly, 341 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) ("reasonable grounds for investigation" standard)
- United States v. Meader, 118 F.3d 876 (1st Cir.) (deference to district court's credibility assessments of jurors)
- United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1st Cir.) (district court must create suitable framework and spell out findings to permit review)
- United States v. Lara-Ramirez, 519 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (judge may not refuse any inquiry when colorable claim exists)
- United States v. Newman, 982 F.2d 665 (1st Cir.) (inference of implicit credibility findings from district court's reasoning)
- United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599 (1st Cir.) (example where inadequate inquiry led to new trial in case-specific circumstances)
- United States v. Bristol-Mártir, 570 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.) (failure to probe influence of juror's outside research warranted reversal)
- United States v. Villar, 586 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (approach of remanding for investigation where district court failed to investigate juror-misconduct allegations)