United States v. Zimny, 873 F.3d 38

Mark J. Zimny, an educational consultant, solicited wired payments from the Chows in Hong Kong purportedly to make "development contributions" to boarding schools but instead kept the funds; he was convicted on multiple counts including wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions, false tax returns, and bank fraud.
After conviction, an anonymous blog comment claimed a juror ("Juror No. 8") had been "spouting" about a blog during trial; the First Circuit in Zimny I remanded for an investigation into this colorable allegation of juror misconduct.
On remand the district court examined the other thirteen jurors individually (in counsel's presence), used a court-led script developed with party input, and found each juror credible, concluded no juror authored the blog comment, and that no juror misconduct occurred.
Zimny also sought a continuance before trial because his chosen counsel, Kevin Reddington, was engaged in a Massachusetts murder trial; the district court denied the last-minute continuance requests and proceeded with other defense counsel handling the early trial stages; Reddington joined midtrial.
Zimny moved to sever two bank-fraud counts from the indictment; the court denied the motion, the jury convicted on counts 1–13 and acquitted on count 14 (one bank-fraud count).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of juror-misconduct investigation	District court failed to probe memory fading, limited counsel participation, should have questioned Juror No. 8 and blog host; investigation inadequate	District court used reasonable, even-handed procedures, thoroughly questioned jurors, made credibility findings supported by testimony	Affirmed — review for abuse of discretion; court's framework and factual findings were reasonable and not clearly erroneous
Denial of continuance implicating Sixth Amendment counsel-of-choice	Denial deprived Zimny of his chosen counsel (Reddington); structural error under Gonzalez-Lopez	Court balanced calendar, late request, local rule noncompliance, availability of experienced co-counsel; denial was within discretion	Affirmed — abuse-of-discretion review; not an "unreasoning and arbitrary" insistence on speed; no erroneous deprivation established
Joinder of bank-fraud counts and motion to sever	Joinder caused spillover prejudice from bank-fraud evidence to other counts; severance required	Jury instructed to consider counts separately; acquittal on one bank-fraud count shows no spillover; some bank-fraud evidence admissible on other counts	Affirmed — even assuming misjoinder, any error harmless (no actual prejudice given instructions and verdict)

United States v. Zimny, 846 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2017) (remanding for juror-misconduct investigation)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (erroneous deprivation of counsel of choice is structural error)
United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242 (1st Cir. 2001) (guidance on reasonable procedures for juror-misconduct investigations)
United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1990) (deference to district-court findings on juror credibility)
United States v. Maldonado, 708 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2013) (continuance denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; counsel-of-choice right circumscribed)
United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2017) (harmlessness analysis for misjoinder requires "actual prejudice")
United States v. Edgar, 82 F.3d 499 (1st Cir. 1996) (misjoinder not reversible if harmless; jury instructions and acquittal mitigate spillover prejudice)