United States v. McChesney, No. 16-30052 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis of improper contact with the jury. The panel held that defendant failed to carry his burden to offer any credible evidence to establish that his ex-girlfriend had said nasty things about him to the jurors at trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to recall the jury for live questioning, by recusing itself under 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b), and by excluding defendant from pre-hearing telephonic conferences. Finally, defendant forfeited any right to challenge the destruction of surveillance videos and, even without forfeiture, his claim failed because he failed to allege bad faith.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, after an evidentiary hearing on remand, of the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of improper contact with the jury. The defendant asserted that his ex-girlfriend had made derogatory comments about him to the jurors at his trial. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that there was no credible evidence that the ex-girlfriend ever made statements to a juror, and substantial evidence supported the district court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses who testified at the evidentiary hearing. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to recall the jury for live questioning, by preventing the defendant from contacting the jurors himself, or by relying on a court-drafted questionnaire that was sent to each juror. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by refusing to recuse itself for bias or a lack of impartiality, and there was no denial of due process in the defendant’s exclusion from pre-hearing telephonic conferences. The panel held that the defendant forfeited the right to challenge the destruction of courthouse surveillance videos that could have supported his allegations of improper juror
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.