## Facts

- Defendants were tried in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for highly publicized violent crimes.
- On August 13, 1973, a jury found defendants guilty of offenses including first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and robbery.
- The jury deliberated for nine days; when polled, each juror acknowledged the verdict as his own.
- Two days after the verdict, defendants moved for a new trial, claiming the verdict was not freely assented to by all jurors, supported by affidavits from two jurors alleging “pressures.”
- A post-trial inquiry was ordered into allegations of unauthorized communications with the sequestered jury; by consent, a special master conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued findings and conclusions.
- In a prior appeal, the court of appeals vacated the denial of a new trial and remanded for the trial judge to conduct de novo review of the special master’s report and record.
- On remand, the trial judge reviewed the record de novo, made independent findings, and again denied a new trial.
- One allegation involved a jury matron allegedly telling a juror she wanted the jury to “hurry” so she could go home; the juror had voted guilty throughout, did not tell other jurors about the remark, and did not claim it changed her vote.
- The trial judge evaluated competing testimony about the alleged remark and, in explaining credibility, referenced his understanding of the matron’s appreciation for her job.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged juror “pressures” and contacts during sequestration, including a purported remark by a jury attendant, constituted prejudicial extraneous influence requiring a new trial.
2. Whether the trial judge improperly relied on extra-record personal knowledge (akin to judicial notice) when assessing witness credibility during the post-trial inquiry.
3. Whether the district court’s post-remand de novo review and factual findings were erroneous under the applicable standard of appellate review.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the order denying a new trial.
- The court held the district court applied the correct framework distinguishing impermissible extraneous influence from internal deliberative matters and speculative contacts.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the finding that no extraneous influence affected the verdict, including as to the alleged comment by the jury matron.
- The court determined the trial judge’s credibility determinations and related factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
- The court held the trial judge conducted the required de novo review of the special master’s work and made independent findings.

## Legal Principles

- Post-verdict juror impeachment is generally barred as to internal deliberations; inquiry is permitted only when there is a credible claim of external or “extraneous” influence on the jury.
- Not every unauthorized contact warrants relief; a new trial requires a showing of actual prejudice or a substantial risk that extraneous influence affected deliberations.
- Judicial notice is confined to facts not subject to reasonable dispute and readily verifiable; a judge should not substitute personal impressions for evidence as dispositive fact-finding.
- Trial-court credibility determinations and historical fact findings in post-trial jury-influence proceedings are reviewed deferentially and will not be disturbed absent clear error, particularly where demeanor and credibility are central.
- A remand requiring de novo review obligates the trial judge to independently evaluate the record and findings rather than merely adopt a subordinate report.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial because the asserted juror “pressures” and the alleged brief remark by a jury attendant did not establish prejudicial extraneous influence on deliberations, and the district court’s independently made post-remand findings—including credibility determinations—were not clearly erroneous.


Government of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140 (3d Cir. 1975)