United States v. Hernandez

176 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sanchez was delivering the shipment of cigarettes when a van cut him off and forced him to stop his truck. Alvarez jumped out of the van waiving a gun and ordered Sanchez to roll down the window and get out of the truck. Sanchez complied with the demand, but only after he pressed a panic button inside the truck that was designed to silently signal an alarm. D got in the truck. Alvarez led Sanchez to a nearby van and forced him to get in. Luis got out of a second van and joined D who had gotten into Sanchez' truck. The conspirators then drove off. Alvarez drove off with Sanchez. Sanchez was eventually released. A satellite tracking device inside the stolen truck disclosed the truck's location to police. D who had been unloading cases of cigarettes from the truck was arrested. Police found Sanchez' cigarette lighter inside a package of cigarettes that was inside D's shirt pocket. D claimed he merely took a job unloading the truck and was given the pack of cigarettes and the lighter. D was indicted and tried. Alvarez testified against D pursuant to a plea bargain. The District Court allowed jurors to pose questions by handing the court written questions for the court's review. The court would then allow the attorneys to see the question so that counsel could make whatever objections they deemed appropriate, and the court could thus determine the admissibility and propriety of a question outside the hearing of the jury before asking the question. One juror asked a question in this manner, 'What kind of rear doors are on the rear of the trailer?' Defense counsel immediately objected to the question, even though the court never asked it. Defense counsel wanted to investigate the jury for misconduct. Defense counsel argued that the substance of the question, as well as its timing, suggested that the juror assumed D was guilty. The court denied the request. D was convicted and appealed. D claims that by permitting the jurors to act as inquisitors and declining to investigate alleged jury misconduct following the suspect question, D was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial before an impartial jury.