## Facts

- Genevieve A. Clark was selected as a juror in a federal mail-fraud prosecution in the District of Minnesota involving William B. Foshay and others.
- Before trial, Clark learned the case involved the Foshay defendants and discussed the possibility of being excused, including that she had previously worked for the Foshay Company.
- During voir dire, Clark disclosed limited prior employment and denied meaningful familiarity with the defendants; the trial court later found she concealed additional relationships and a favorable disposition toward the defense.
- The underlying criminal case ended in a hung jury; Clark was the sole juror favoring acquittal.
- The United States initiated a criminal contempt proceeding alleging Clark intentionally gave misleading and false voir dire answers to secure a seat on the jury and obstruct justice.
- In the contempt trial (to the judge, without a jury), the government introduced testimony from other jurors describing Clark’s statements and conduct during jury deliberations to show she entered the jury with a concealed, fixed bias.
- The district court found Clark guilty of criminal contempt and imposed sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether juror testimony about jury-room statements and conduct was admissible in a criminal contempt proceeding to prove a juror’s concealed bias and false or misleading voir dire answers.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal contempt conviction based on intentional deception during voir dire undertaken with intent to obstruct the administration of justice.
3. Whether asserted evidentiary errors required reversal in a bench-tried contempt proceeding.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the criminal contempt conviction but remanded for correction of a sentencing error.
- The court held it was not reversible error to admit evidence concerning what occurred in the jury room where the evidence was offered to prove the juror’s own misconduct and fraud on the court, not to challenge a verdict.
- The court concluded the competent evidence supported findings that Clark concealed material information, gave knowingly false or misleading answers on voir dire, and acted with intent to obstruct justice.
- The court applied the principle that, in a nonjury trial, the judgment should be affirmed if properly admitted evidence is sufficient to support it, even if some evidence may have been questionable.

## Legal Principles

- A juror who intentionally gives false or knowingly misleading answers on voir dire to obtain a jury position, with intent to interfere with the fair administration of justice, may be punished for criminal contempt.
- The general rule protecting the secrecy of jury deliberations does not bar juror testimony when offered to prove a juror’s own fraud or misconduct affecting the juror’s qualifications and compliance with duty, rather than to impeach a verdict.
- In reviewing a bench-tried contempt conviction, appellate courts will uphold the judgment if the properly admitted evidence supports the trial court’s findings, giving deference to the trial judge’s credibility determinations and reasonable inferences about intent.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a criminal contempt conviction for a juror’s deliberate deception during voir dire, holding that testimony about jury-room conduct could be received to prove juror fraud and obstruction, and that the remaining competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings and judgment.


Clark v. United States, 61 F.2d 695 (8th Cir. 1932)