Can You Get a New Trial If a Juror Hid Something During Jury Selection?

If a juror lied or left out key facts during jury selection, you may be able to get a new trial, even after you are convicted. United States v. French, No. 16-2386 (1st Cir. 2018), shows how that can work, and how much the facts matter.

Malcolm French and Rodney Russell were convicted in Maine of charges tied to a large marijuana-growing operation on land French owned. (French owned about 80,000 acres in total.) After sentencing, the defense learned that a juror may have hidden important facts.

The tip came from jail, where another prisoner told a co-defendant that one of the jurors was the mother of a fairly well-known marijuana and cocaine dealer. Her son had two drug convictions and had served time. She had paid his legal fees and visited him in jail.

What the Juror Left Out

Juror Misconduct

The defense went back to her jury questionnaire. One question asked whether she or a family member had ever been involved in a legal matter as a plaintiff, defendant, witness, or victim. Follow-up questions asked whether she was satisfied with the outcome and, if not, why.

She answered "n/a" to the first question and left the follow-ups blank. She also left the rest of that page blank and said nothing in response to the magistrate judge's questions during jury selection.

To the defense, this missing information was crucial for spotting possible bias. She had her own history with the criminal justice system. She might also have felt hostility toward two men charged with growing the same drug her son was convicted of possessing and selling. It looked like juror misconduct.

The Motion for a New Trial

Given what looked like dishonesty, or at least a lack of candor, the defense moved for a new trial for both defendants. They argued that if the juror had answered honestly, they would have had grounds to challenge her. The government did not deny she left out the information, but it opposed holding a hearing because the trial was over.

The district court denied the motion without a full hearing. It found the omission was a mistake, not dishonesty, and that the defense could not show honest answers would have given them a valid challenge. It also noted that about two years had passed since trial, so in its view the time to ask for a hearing on juror misconduct or bias had long passed.

The First Circuit's Ruling

The First Circuit held the district court's inquiry was not enough. It vacated the denial of the new trial motion and sent the case back for an evidentiary hearing on why the juror answered the way she did and whether she was biased.

The court rejected the government's argument that the defense should have spotted the blank answers during jury selection and had no good reason to wait two years after trial to raise the issue. It also said any problems caused by the passage of time should cut against the government.

The court did not order a new trial outright; the district court had to decide that after the hearing.

What This Means for You

Even routine parts of a trial, like jury questionnaires, can raise issues for a new trial or appeal. If you learn something after trial that suggests a juror was not honest, tell your lawyer quickly, and let the lawyer decide how to look into it rather than contacting the juror yourself. Many federal courts limit contact with jurors after trial.

Deadlines apply. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b), a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within three years after the verdict; a motion on other grounds must be filed within 14 days after the verdict.

Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.