Page 24 - The People of the State of New York v. M. Robert Neulander - Brief for Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Respondent

979.

Bouldin,_

CPL § 330.30(2).
may stand only if

juror lied about a number of

juror] through a whisper or a byte.")

that her "lies give rise to an inference of
19
The same should hold true in this case.

her internet access, give rise to a presumption of
also during trial, likewise require an implication of
bias.
bias.

United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 168 (2d Cir. 1994)).

implied bias on her part."
between jurors and third parties are presumptively prejudicial~
In Dyer v.
it is 'obvious' that no prejudice resulted from the
was confirmed, inter alia, when she provided innocuous text messages as

U.S._, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1895 (2016) ("Prejudice can come [to a
See also Dietz v.
151 F.3d at
Calderon, a
Moreover, Juror 12's implied bias
matters during voir dire; and the Ninth Circuit held
2014 WL 3697810, at *26 (D. Vt. July 24, 2014) ("It is undisputed that 'the law
States, 347 U.S. 227,230 (1954) (private communications with a juror about the
attachments to her affidavit in opposition to Mr. Neulander's motion pursuant to
communications") (citations omitted); United States v. Fell, DktNo. 2:0l~r-12,
and] the verdict
341 (Ill. 1998) ("[T]he law is well established that communications about the case
Juror 12's lies in chambers,
presumes prejudice from a jury's exposure to extra-record information"') (quoting
case during trial are presumptively prejudicial); People v. Robley, 696 N.E.2d 313,
She clearly knew that the text messages she did not then provide
Here, Juror 12's communications during trial with her father and friends, and