## Facts

- Defendants Jean Littlefield, George Nicoladze, and Fred Solomon were tried jointly on federal charges arising from an allegedly fraudulent tax shelter scheme.
- During deliberations, a juror brought a Time magazine article into the jury room.
- The article discussed similar “investment tax shelter” schemes and criticized shelters the IRS had attacked as abusive.
- At least some jurors read and discussed the article while deciding the case.
- After the verdicts of guilt, the defense learned of the article’s use and sought relief based on exposure to extrinsic information.
- The district court held a post-trial evidentiary hearing to assess possible juror bias and denied a new trial, finding no prejudice.

## Issues

1. When jurors are exposed to extraneous information during deliberations, whether prejudice is presumed and the government bears the burden to prove harmlessness, or whether defendants must prove actual bias.
2. Whether Smith v. Phillips altered the Remmer framework governing extraneous influences on jurors, including the burden of proof.
3. Whether, on this record, the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Time article did not affect the jury’s impartiality.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that juror exposure to extrinsic information is presumptively prejudicial.
- The court held that Smith v. Phillips did not eliminate Remmer’s presumption of prejudice or shift the burden to defendants.
- The court concluded the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the article’s presence and discussion in the jury room was harmless.
- The court found the district court understated the extent of juror discussion of the article, weakening the basis for a no-prejudice finding.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant is entitled to a verdict based solely on evidence admitted in court and the court’s instructions, not outside information introduced during deliberations.
- When jurors are exposed to extraneous information related to the case, prejudice is presumed.
- After a showing of improper external influence, the government bears the burden to rebut the presumption by proving harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, typically through an evidentiary hearing.
- Smith v. Phillips requires an adequate hearing to assess juror partiality but does not, by itself, reassign to defendants the burden to disprove harmlessness once extrinsic influence is established.

## Conclusion

Because jurors were exposed during deliberations to a news article closely related to the charged conduct and the government did not dispel the resulting presumption of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt, the convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.


United States v. Littlefield, 752 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1985)