UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKY ANTHONY LANIER (16-6655); KATRINA RESHINA LANIER (16-6657) - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKY ANTHONY LANIER (16-6655); KATRINA RESHINA LANIER (16-6657)

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Feb 11, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: J. Alex Little, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Brian Samuelson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: J. Alex Little, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, John-David H. Thomas, WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTH & DAVIS, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Brian Samuelson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a phone-a-friend gone awry. In 2015, Ricky and Katrina Lanier were prosecuted for allegedly committing fraud against the federal government. As the jury deliberated the Laniers’ fate, Juror 11 called her friend, a state prosecutor who was not involved with the federal government’s case against the Laniers. The friend immediately reported the call to the district court. Although the juror told her friend that there was a “problem with the deliberations,” the district court rejected the Laniers’ request to investigate jury bias. Following our 2017 decision that the Laniers must be guaranteed a “meaningful opportunity” to establish jury bias, the district court summoned the jurors and the friend to attend a Remmer hearing and ordered them not to discuss or research the case. Defying the district court, Juror 11 texted the same friend four days before the Remmer hearing; the juror’s messages solicited the friend’s input about the Laniers’ case and suggested that the juror had looked the case up online. True to form, the friend reported the texts to the district court. The district judge failed to notify the Laniers of these texts, and the Laniers first learned of the messages from the friend’s testimony at the Remmer hearing.

The district court denied the Laniers’ motions for a new trial, presenting us with the fourth occasion to review this quinquennial saga. We conclude that the Laniers were deprived of a “meaningful opportunity” to demonstrate juror bias and that the Laniers are entitled to a new trial to be held before another district judge. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Attachments: