Yesterday, the 11th Circuit court of appeals in U.S. v. Snipes upheld Wesley Snipes' conviction and three-year sentence on tax evasion. Snipes had hoped to have his conviction overturned by the appellate court because of juror misconduct. According to the defense, the trial court had acted erroneously when it failed to investigate allegations of juror misconduct. Specifically, defense counsel wanted to interview jurors from the trial because it had received an email from one of the jurors which stated that
three members of the jury acknowledged, during deliberations, that they had determined that Snipes was guilty before the trial began . . . to reach a unanimous verdict, the jurors compromised by convicting Snipes on three of the lesser counts, believing that he would not receive jail time.
Relying on FRE 606(b), which makes it very difficult to impeach a jury's verdict absent the showing of some type of outside influence on the jury, the trial judge denied the defense's motion. The appellate court, relying on U.S. v. Siegelman, affirmed the trial court's decision stating that
the emails fell within Rule 606(b)’s general exclusionary provision, because that provision covers “any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations.” Second, the emails did not fall within the Rule’s specifically enumerated exceptions, because they did not allege outside influence, reliance on extraneous information, or a mistake in filling out the verdict form. Moreover, even if the allegations had been admissible, the district court indicated that they did not constitute clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence of the type of misconduct that would warrant a new trial.
Comments