Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 94-2117
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL GASTON-BRITO,
Defendant - Appellant.
____________________
No. 94-2118
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DANIEL NU EZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
____________________
____________________
Before
_____________________
ez and Richard
Ware
______________
______________
____________________
____________________
-2-
TORRUELLA,
TORRUELLA,
Rafael Gast n
conspiracy
to
Chief Judge.
Chief Judge.
___________
Brito ("Brito")
possess
Daniel
appeal from
cocaine with
ez
ez") and
jury convictions
intent
to
21 U.S.C.
("N
of
distribute and
in violation of
ez claim that
new trial.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
The
focus of
this case
was
a drug-trafficking
ring
light
when
("D az"),
one
was
of
the
drug
arrested
and
couriers,
agreed
to
Harry
Benjam n
cooperate
with
D az
the
government.
D az offered
testimony, D az
to New
York.
In the course
testified that on
whether
During cross-examination,
had been
detailed
ez paid
counsel for
required him
of his
York.
ez and Brito in
ez asked
to return
D az
the $15,000
and that
the
money was
therefore no
longer in
his possession
when the
-3-
government
asked
him
to
surrender
it.
Specifically,
testified:
government] asked
give it
to them.
me my
wife
it I
he
don't
ordered it
and if
it
I don't know.
requested permission
Agent
mistrial.
now
to
approach the
bench.
He informed
the
sitting
pointing
to
at the
prosecution
the defense
table.1
table,
made
Counsel
a hand
then moved
motion.
Case
signal
for
Appellants
mistrial without
first
investigating the
alleged
incident
to
Juror
misconduct
claims
fall
under
two
broad
at the
core of
impartial
the Sixth
jury,
free
Amendment's right
from
prejudicial
to a
contact.
"Both
are
trial by
an
Private
____________________
The way
I saw it
that is
his chest,
and [when]
the question
was
the
last time -- when I made the objection -he simply pointed his first finger at the
defense table.
-4-
communications
the
reach
juror may
verdict on
the
basis
1987).
of the
matters
United States v.
_____________
Thus,
although the
jurors themselves, we
broad
"When a non-
by
so,
whether
it
was
prejudicial."
United States
_____________
(1990);
v.
Ortiz______
United States v.
______________
United States
_____________
(1st Cir.),
though
not unlimited,
nature of its
The
discretion to
determine
full
Cir. 1979).
Thus, although
investigation
misconduct actually
to
ascertain
"broad,
the extent
bias."
590
and
Corbin,
______
whether
occurred," United
the
States v.
alleged
jury
Doe, 513
F.2d
______________
extent and
type of
investigation requisite to
___
a ruling
on the
Id. at 712.
__
-5-
Our
previous
cases
have "abjure[d]
imposition
of a
rigid set of rules for the conduct of inquiries into the presence
or
extent
of
extrinsic
kaleidoscopic variety of
flexibility."
employs,
[noting]
effects, and
the
favor of
Thus,
erects,
framework
that
[s]o long as
and
influences,
for
and gauging
thereafter spells
out
informed
appellate
review,
his
Id.
___
(quoting
Hunnewell,
_________
891
F.2d
at
961)
(other
citations
omitted).
The
standard, however,
because the
appellants alleged
an ex parte
_________
communication by
government
agent
with the
with the
case is
and obligates
the
the
12, 14 (1st
U.S.
227,
Cir. 1992).
229
tampering with
before
the
(1954)
circumstances, the
and
obligated
United States
_____________
(ex parte
_________
appellants' claim
to
communication,
is presumptively
the court
a juror during
jury
"Any
presumptively prejudicial"
court to "conduct a
jurors.
or
matter pending
prejudicial).
Under these
was clearly
non-frivolous
undertake an
-6-
contact,
adequate
inquiry to
determine
whether the
alleged
incident
occurred
and
if
so,
The district
neither questioned
court failed
in this
obligation, as
it
It
jurors to
determine whether the Case Agent had made the alleged gesture, or
if he
seen it.
Instead, the
occurred,
no
harm
had
inured
to
the
defendants.
Such
inquiry,
for an unauthorized
it is completely
harmless.
shown to be
juror and
prejudicial" unless
communication between a
F.2d at
juror and
a "casual,
harmless).
connected
to
the
case,
the
district
court
made
no
effort
alleged
communication
Counsel
for Brito
implicated N
ez
clearly
claimed
as the
posed
that the
danger
Case
prejudice.
Agent's gesture
by threats
of
had
to her
D az had been
occurred
-7-
and
was
seen
by
the jurors,
they
might
impermissibly
have
of their deliberations.
Further, we
Agent, whom
information.
Thus,
understood to suggest
to D az'
credence.
had the
it was, that no
record, not
merely
presume
process
means a
jury capable
the threats
it substantial
the
observed and
them.
As
the Supreme
Court
and
willing to
decide the
case
solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful
to
this
conduct a sufficient
right, and
therefore requires
that
appellants of
their convictions
be
vacated.2
____________________
Because
herein,
we
we
vacate
decline
the convictions
to
reach
appellants.
-8-
the
on
other
the grounds
issues
stated
raised
by