United States v. Manuel Aguilar

Filing

OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly AUTHORING JUDGE:Duane Benton (PUBLISHED) [4158610] [13-2845]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2845
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Manuel Maldonado Aguilar
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: May 8, 2014
Filed: May 29, 2014
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
Manuel Maldonado Aguilar appealed his conviction, challenging, among other
things, the presence of an alternate juror during deliberations. This court remanded
“for the limited purpose of inquiry about the alternate’s actual participation.” In light
of the district court’s factual findings, this court reverses and remands.

Appellate Case: 13-2845

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/29/2014 Entry ID: 4158610

“[T]he alternate’s presence during deliberations violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 24(c)(3).” United States v. Aguilar, 743 F.3d 1144, 1148 (8th
Cir. 2014), citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737 (1993) (“The presence
of alternate jurors during jury deliberations is no doubt a deviation from Rule
24(c).”). Because Maldonado did not object at trial, this court reviews for plain error.
Id., citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52. “Maldonado bears the burden to show that the error
was prejudicial.” Id. at 1149, citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 737-38.
In the earlier opinion, this court held that “a defendant is prejudiced when an
alternate ‘actually participate[s] in the deliberations’ or ‘exert[s] a ‘chilling’ effect on
the regular jurors.’” Id., quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 739. This court remanded for
factual findings whether the alternate actually participated in deliberations or was
merely present. Id. at 1150-51.
After 10 jurors and the alternate testified, the district court found:
The alternate juror participated in the deliberations. Although it appears
that her participation was minimal, it is clear that she asked questions.
As the testimony outlined below indicates, different jurors remember her
participation differently. The most reliable person on this question is the
alternate juror herself, who testified that she asked questions but did not
indicate her views on whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty.
The alternate did not participate in any votes. Here, again, the most
reliable testimony is that of the alternate, who testified that she did not
vote. Although two jurors testified that they believe the alternate voted,
neither of these jurors was certain. All other jurors testified that the
alternate did not vote.
The alternate did not indicate her views regarding the defendant. It
appears that the jury was divided between eight to nine jurors who
believed the defendant was guilty and three to four jurors who initially
believed he was not guilty. The alternate testified that she asked
-2-

Appellate Case: 13-2845

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/29/2014 Entry ID: 4158610

questions but never indicated her views regarding the defendant’s guilt.
Although two jurors believe the alternate expressed her views because
they remember everyone doing so, they do not remember what the
alternate may have said. The other jurors either agree with the alternate’s
testimony that she did not express her views, or they do not remember
whether she did so.
Finally, the alternate’s presence did not restrain the regular jurors from
expressing their views or exercising independent thought. The jury was
split at first, and each juror expressed her views before the votes were
taken. The alternate did not participate in the discussions between these
votes. Moreover, every juror testified that nothing the alternate said or
did affected their points of view or the outcome of the case.
United States v. Maldonado, No. 4:11CR00190-03 BSM, 2014 WL 1744865, at *1
(E.D. Ark. May 1, 2014).
Because the alternate actually participated in deliberations, the error was
prejudicial.
*******
The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 13-2845

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/29/2014 Entry ID: 4158610