Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Andres Sanchez’s motion for a new trial and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the district court applied the wrong standard in assessing prejudice from a racially biased juror who participated in deliberations, and that the Remmer presumption of prejudice applied. The court concluded that the Government had not met its burden to establish harmlessness.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What legal standard governs prejudice when a racially biased juror participates in deliberations but is excused before the trial court accepts the verdict?
- Whether the presence of the racially biased juror constituted structural error under Dyer v. Calderon.
- Whether the Government rebutted the presumption of prejudice and established that the juror's presence and racially biased comments were harmless.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Sanchez's motion for a new trial.
Holdings
- When the presence of a racially biased juror is discovered, or a juror is found to have made a racially biased statement, and that juror is excused before the trial court accepts a verdict, the Remmer presumption of prejudice applies.
- Dyer v. Calderon's structural-error rule does not apply when a racially biased juror participates in deliberations but is excused before the trial court accepts the verdict.
- The Government did not meet its heavy burden to rebut the strong presumption and evidence that Juror 5's presence and racially biased comments prejudiced Sanchez.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we hold that when the presence of a racially biased juror is discovered or a juror is found to have made a racially biased statement, but that juror is excused before the trial court accepts a verdict, the Remmer presumption of prejudice applies.” (42)
“Because the Government has not met its burden to show Juror 5’s presence and racially biased statements were harmless, Sanchez is entitled to a new trial.” (51)
“Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Sanchez’s motion for a new trial, and we REMAND for a new trial.” (51)
Factual background
Andres Sanchez, who is of Mexican descent, was convicted of preparing and presenting false and fraudulent tax returns for clients of a Boise tax-preparation business. During deliberations, Juror 5 made statements reflecting racial or national-origin bias against Mexicans, including comments that Mexicans come to the United States to take advantage of Americans. The district court found that Juror 5 could not deliberate fairly and impartially, excused him after most deliberations had occurred, and allowed the remaining eleven jurors to resume deliberations without directing them to begin anew.
Procedural history
Sanchez was indicted on eight counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2); one count was dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial on seven counts. During deliberations, the district court determined that Juror 5 had made racially biased comments concerning Mexicans and excused him for cause, then permitted the remaining eleven jurors to resume deliberations and return a partial verdict. The court denied Sanchez's motions for a mistrial and new trial, applying the standard from United States v. Sarkisian. The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of the new-trial motion and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct a new trial.