WPCD XTUy@̭ɻyZ X0d/8Gw<'h$gXg:zK*ʾ=ls*r BUYg8;zX ÆnE`^uFG!zW 3s̴λHNp2e BhYtc-(#i[2<.CrjCfMCxX::>fxKߡb1Hk.55FGRb[{4"1EfSջ3j- @Ŋ:TJYv48vF! u!tg`-^$}9A[;'p $F}DҋDFGY8 Ej_4 <=f`Ŀ;Tb 1U)HM3N7m^T:7I7?#|i*~ zabI1J#  % 0 D 0G U:f 0 UW8H nT N UN UPF$ ^ j wv 4z   E f a m  1u 72H 0cP 0w 0* 0 0T 0 0 0 0D 1u 0UR 0N 0 BQ 0n 0- 0 0F 0\ 0 0 0i 0: 0 0 0A 0 0} 0! 0! 0a" 0/# 0# 0$ 0-% 0% 0c& 0&''R()(z*+1f#7i 9b DHP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2$ !X$XXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regularrj;Z ^#;y File3|xTABLE AU $XXXX      *    _OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  x3MQUY]aeiBullets List*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,   d*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h  e *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x    ,   $XXXX      1    __ԀJoshua_Gagnon_Ԁand_Dedra_ԀScott,theAppellantsco  conspirators,pleadedguiltytothechargespriortoAppellants  trial. H $XXXX      2    __ԀSomeofthedetailsprovidedbythesewitnesseswere  corroboratedbylaywitnesseswhosawtherobbersandthegetaway  vehicle.  $XXXX      3    __ԀOnappealhehasrecasttheconstitutionalrightasarising  undertheFifthandSixthAmendmentsaswell.  $XXXX      4    __ԀTheAppellantassertsviolationsofbothhisdueprocess e rightsandhisSixthAmendmentrightstoafairandimpartialjury. ; Courtsthathavedealtwiththeissueofpossibleracialandethnic  biasduringjurydeliberationshaveframedtheirdiscussions  primarilyinthecontextoftheSixthAmendment.See,e.g., X Tanner,483U.S.at127( Petitioners'SixthAmendmentinterestsin . anunimpairedjury,ontheotherhand,areprotectedbyseveral i  aspectsofthetrialprocess.);_Benally_,546F.3dat1240( We ?  mustrememberthattheSixthAmendmentembodiesarighttoafair   trialbutnotaperfectone,fortherearenoperfecttrials.).    Othercourtshaveconsideredachallengetobiasinjuror  \  deliberationsasencompassingbothdueprocessandSixthAmendment  2  rights.See,e.g.,_Shillcutt_,827F.2dat1159.Thepartiesdo m  notdistinguishbetweenthetworightsforpurposesofthe C  analysis. `     h   $XXXX      5    __ԀSeeMcDonough,464U.S.at558(Brennan,J.,concurring) e ( Becausethebiasofajurorwillrarelybeadmittedbythejuror ; himself,partlybecausethejurormayhaveaninterestin  concealinghisownbiasandpartlybecausethejurormaybeunaware  ofit,...itnecessarilymustbeinferredfromsurrounding X factsandcircumstances.(quotingSmithv.Phillips,455U.S.at . 22122(OConnor,J.,concurring))).Asthetrialjudgeinthis i  casepointedoutbasedonhismanyyearsofdealingwithjury ?  trials,manydefenseattorneyshavesoundtacticalreasonsfornot   proposingspecificvoirdirequestionsregardingracialorethnic    biasbecauseitmightbeviewedasinsultingtojurorsoras  \  raisinganissuedefensecounseldoesnotwanttohighlight.As  2  thegovernmentpointedout,voirdireusingquestionsaboutraceor m  ethnicitymaynotworktoadefendantsbenefitwhereoneofthe C  robberswasdescribedasHispanic. \ $XXXX      6    __Ԁ [_C]ommentary_ԀintheGuidelinesManualthatinterpretsor e explainsaguidelineisauthoritativeunlessitviolatesthe ; Constitutionorafederalstatute,orisinconsistentwith,ora  plainlyerroneousreadingof,thatguideline._Stinson_v.United  States,508U.S.36,38(1993). _ $XXXX      7    __ԀPriortoNovember1,2000,theGuidelinesprovidedthat e  brandishedmeantthattheweaponwas pointedorwavedabout,or ; displayedinathreateningmanner._ U.S.S.G._ Ԁ1B1.1_ cmt_ .n.1_ (C_ )  (1999)(amendedNov.1,2000).Underthatdefinition,somecourts  drewadistinctionbetweenexplicitandimplicitthreats X accompanyingthedisplayofaweaponinordertodistinguish . between _ brandish[ing_ ]and otherwise_ us[ing_ ].See,e.g.,United i  Statesv._ Moerman_ ,233F.3d379,38081(6thCir.2000)(holding ?  that pointingthefirearminathreateningmannerwithouttheuse   ofverbalthreatswas _ brandish[ing_ ]ofaweapon).Themajority    ofcircuitsthathaveanalyzedthisissueundertheamended  \  definitionhavenotedthattheexplicit/implicitdistinctionisno  2  longeruseful.Sincetheamendeddefinition,courtshaveinstead m  focusedonthe specificasopposedto generaluseoftheweapon C  indeterminingwhichenhancementisappropriate.Seegenerally   UnitedStatesv._ Dunigan_ ,555F.3d501,505(5thCir.2009)   (holdingthat otherwiseuse[]requiresthat [_ t]he_ Ԁthreattothe `  victimmustbespecificratherthangeneral); XXXX#XXX X#ԀUnitedStatesv. 6 Paine,407F.3d958,96364(8thCir.2005)(concludingthat q  defendant otherwiseusedaweaponwhenhe employedthegunto G conveyathreatdirectedat[a]specifictellerwhichwasintended  tointimidateherintocomplyingwithhisdemands);UnitedStates  v.Orr,312F.3d141,145(3dCir.2002)( Neithertheguidelines d northe_ caselaw_ Ԁrequires...averbalizedthreattoharmthe : victiminordertoconstituteotherwiseused). XXXX#XXX X #  u  XXXX- - !XXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! X"XXX X X"     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals _   FortheFirstCircuit  X: _ XX X:  A') ` dE< ` A   No.081154 u  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, ! q @&Appellee,    @tt)v. y  @hh#RICHARD_VILLAR_, %u  @ Defendant,Appellant. ! A') ` dE<|` A } @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT b @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE ^ @` ` [Hon.PaulJ.Barbadoro,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((TorruellaandBoudin,CircuitJudges, G andSaris, #  *      ׀DistrictJudge.   A') ` dE<N ` A O "       MarkL.Stevens,Esq.,forappellant. 4!$   _Aixa_Ԁ_Maldonado_Ԅ_Qui ones_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,  "Z% withwhomMichaelJ._Gunnison_,ActingUnitedStatesAttorney,was "0& onthebriefforappellee. #' *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  b% )b%   SI%!* @40126@SNovember10,2009 &!,  RHCr'"-" @40126 @ R(%!.  (  * !  N)$/? __  8  XXdd8  ,O A=-PXXdd=I  XXX XSARIS,DistrictJudge. Afterajurytrial,Defendant  appellantRichard_ Villar_ ,aHispanicman,wasconvictedofbank x robbery.Hoursfollowinghisconviction,defensecounselreceived $t anemailmessagefromoneofthejurorsdisclosingthatduring   deliberationsanotherjurorsaid, Iguesswereprofilingbutthey |  causeallthetrouble.Whendefensecounselfiledamotionfora ( x  courtinquiryintothevalidityoftheverdict,thecourthelda $  hearinginwhichthejurorwasaskedonlytoauthenticatethee   mail. # XXXX #Concludingthatanallegationofethnicallybiased ,|  statementswithinthejuryroomwasnot,as_ Villar_ Ԁargued,an D externalmatteropentopostverdictinquiry,thedistrictcourt  heldthatFederalRuleofEvidence606(b)precludedthecourtfrom L engaginginanyfurtherexaminationbeyondthemereauthentication H oftheemail.XXX X    Appellantnowchallengestheconvictiononthegroundsthat P thedistrictcourterredwhenitruledthatRule606(b)prohibited L itfromtakingjurortestimonyaboutethnicallybiasedcomments   duringthecourseofdeliberations,andthattheappellantwas T!" deniedtherighttodue_ processandtheright_ Ԁtoanimpartialjury #P$ inviolationoftheFifthandSixthAmendmentstotheConstitution. $& WhileweagreewiththetrialcourtthatRule606(b)precludes X&!( inquiryintojurorprejudice,weholdthatthecourthasthe (T#* discretiontoconductsuchaninquiryundertheSixthAmendmentand )%, theDueProcessClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution. \+&. Accordingly,theCourtreversesthedistrictcourtsorderdenying  appellantsmotiontomakeaninquiryintothevalidityofthe \ verdict,andremandstothetrialcourt.Appellantalsoargues X thattheDistrictCourtincorrectlyappliedthefourlevel   enhancementunderUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelinesManual `  2B3.1(b)(2)(D),anargumentthatwefindhasnomerit.# XXXXؿ#XXX X  \  6  BACKGROUND       OnApril26,2006,Richard_ Villar_ Ԁwasindictedonchargesof   conspiringwithJoshua_ Gagnon_ Ԁand_ Dedra_ ԀScotttocommitbank ,|  robberyinviolationof18U.S.C.371and2113(a),and ( committingabankrobberyinviolationof18U.S.C.2113(a).  TrialcommencedonAugust21,2007.Duringjuryselection,neither 0 partyrequestedthecourttoaskthepotentialjurorsvoirdire , questionsregardingbiasbaseduponraceorethnicity.# XXXXj#XXX X     1.0 ` EvidenceIntroducedatTrial 4` (#` (#   Attrial,thegovernmentintroducedtestimonyfromfifteen L witnesses,including_ Dedra_ ԀScott,_ Villar_ sgirlfriendandco   conspirator,and_ Shauna_ ԀHarrington,_ Gagnon_ sgirlfriend._ B #  1      _ # XXXXأ#XXX XԀNeither T!" ofthebanktellerswhotestifiedcouldpositivelyidentifythe #P$ Appellantasoneofthemenwhorobbedthebank. Basedonthis $& evidence,particularlythetestimonyof_ Dedra_ ԀScottand_ Shauna_  X&!( Harrington,thejurycouldreasonablyfindthefollowingfacts.  (T#*   OnApril18,2006,atelleratSt.MarysbankinHudson,New  Hampshire,wasreturningfromherlunchbreakwhenamanwearinga \ hoodedsweatshirtandaskimaskjumpedoverthenearbychainlink X fence,stucksomethingagainstherside,andtoldhertogetinside   thebank.Themanhada Hispanicaccent.Hetoldthetellerto `  remainquietandnoonewouldgethurt.Eventually,thetellersaw  \  thatthemanwasholdingagun.# XXXXE#XXX XԀOnceinsidethebank,theteller   sawthatherassailantwasnotalone.Anotherman,whowaswhite, d  wasaskingtellerstoplacemoneyinsideabag.TheHispanic `  robberholdingthegunpointeditatanothertellerwhowashiding   underneathherdeskandtoldhertostandinthemiddleofthebank h lobby.# XXXX؄!#XXX XLater,hetoldthetwotellers# XXXX\##XXX Xtogetdownontheirknees d beforebothmenfledthebank.# XXXXؽ##XXX XԀThetwomenstoleatotalof  $17,429.# XXXXM$#XXX X l # XXXX$#XXX X  Accordingto_ Shauna_ ԀHarringtonstestimony,planningforthe h robberybeganafewdayspriortoApril18,2006.Whiletheywere  gettinghighondrugs,_ Villar_ ԀsuggestedtoScott,_ Gagnon_ ,and p  Harringtonthattheyallrobabank.Thefoursharedanapartment !l" atthetimeinNashua,NewHampshire.# XXXX!%#XXX XAccordingtoHarrington, "$ Scottand_ Gagnon_ Ԁseemedinterestedintheidea.Inaddition,two t$& orthreedaysbeforetherobbery,_ Villar_ ԀshowedHarringtontwoBB  &p!( guns:oneblackandtheothersilverandblack.Respondingto '#* _ Villar_ sinquiry,Harringtontoldhimthattheblackonelooked x)$, morerealistic.# XXXXJ'#XXX X $+t&.   Onthemorningoftherobbery,oneof_ Dedra_ Ԁ Scottsfriends  askedhertogotoPatrick_ Kagwa_ shomebecausehewassuffering \ fromaprolongeddiabeticseizure.Whenshefound_ Kagwa_  X unconsciousandcomatose,shecalled911.Scottthenfollowedthe   ambulancein_ Kagwa_ slightblueminivan.Afterlearningthat_ Kagwa_  `  hadsufferedpermanentbraindamageandwouldnotwakeup,Scott  \  leftthehospitalandreturnedtotheapartmentshesharedwith   _ Villar_ ,_ Gagnon_ ,andHarrington.# XXXX؅)#XXX XԀAtthattime,_ Villar_ ԀaskedScott d  touse_ Kagwa_ sminivantodrivehimto_ Villar_ sbrothershouse. `  WhentheydrovebySt.MarysBank,_ Villar_ ԀaskedScotttoturn   aroundandpick_ Gagnon_ Ԁupfromtheapartment.Aftertheyhaddone h so,thethreereturnedtothebank,where_ Villar_ ԀtoldScottto d drivearoundthebuildingtoverifywhetherithadasecondexit.  _ Villar_ ԀinstructedScottwheretoturn,andthenheand_ Gagnon_  l exitedthevehicle.# XXXXA-#XXX X h   Scotteventuallypicked_ Gagnon_ Ԁand_ Villar_ Ԁupnearastopsign  afewblocksawayfromthebank.Astheydroveaway,Scottsawa p  policecruiserwithitslightsondrivingintheopposite !l" direction.Whentheystoppedatagasstation,_ Gagnon_ Ԁthrewabag "$ ofmoneyonthefrontseat._ Villar_ ԀopenedthebagandshowedScott t$& allofthemoney.Scottbecameupsetbecausethepoliceknewthat  &p!( shehad_ Kagwa_ sminivan.Shetold_ Gagnon_ Ԁand_ Villar_ Ԁthatshewould '#* dropthemoffinLowell,Massachusetts,but_ Villar_ Ԁburnedherwith x)$, acigarette,tellingherthatshewas notgoinganywhere.# XXXX0#XXX XOnce $+t&. theyarrivedat_ Villar_ sbrothershome,theyallcountedthe  stolenmoney._ Villar_ ԀtoldScottthatshewouldreceive$3,000.# XXXX(5#XXX X \   Whentheyreturnedtotheirsharedapartment,Scotttold X Harrington, WejustrobbedanF_ ing_ Ԁbank.# XXXXZ6#XXX X_ Villar_ Ԁthenthrew   Harringtonabackpackcontainingthousandsofdollars._ Gagnon_ Ԁgave `  her$1,000,whichHarringtonclaimedsheimmediatelyreturnedto  \  him.# XXXX]7#XXX XLater,_ Villar_ ԀtoldHarringtonthatduringtherobbery,hehad   doneallofthetalkingandthathehadcarriedagun.# XXXXظ8#XXX XThatnight, d  afewhoursaftertherobberywascommitted,_ Villar_ ,Scott,_ Gagnon_ , `  andHarringtonwenttoahotelinManchester,NewHampshire.While   there,theycountedthemoneyagain,and_ Gagnon_ Ԁand_ Villar_ Ԁeach h took$7,000.# XXXXت9#XXX XTheyspenttheeveningatthehotelgettinghigh.# XXXXؤ;#XXX X d   Policerecoveredtheskimaskandtheweaponusedduringthe  robberyinawoodedareanearSt.MarysBank.# XXXX<#XXX XEyewitnesses_ Rino_  l GiordanoandMelissa_ Nichols_ Ԁseparatelyobservedtwomenacting h suspiciouslyaroundthetimeoftherobberyinthevicinityofSt.  MarysBank.# XXXX=#XXX XTheybothdescribedoneofthesubjectsasHispanic p  andasbeingshorterthanhiscompanion.# XXXXh>#XXX XԀ# XXXX?#XXX XAthirdeyewitness, !l" Michael_ Febonio_ ,sawtwomenactingsuspiciouslyanddescribedone "$ ashavingdarkerskinthantheother.# XXXX^?#XXX X_ Nichols_ Ԁalsodescribedthe t$& getawayvehicleasalightblueminivan.# XXXXf@#XXX X  &p!(   Thedefenseattackedthecredibilityoftwoofthe '#* governmentskeywitnesses,_ Shauna_ ԀHarringtonand_ Dedra_ ԀScott, x)$, basedontheirdruguse,criminalhistories,priorliesand $+t&. inconsistentstatements.C #  2      ׀Inaddition,_ Dedra_ ԀScottwasimpeached  asacooperatingwitness.# XXXX%A#XXX XAppellantpointedoutthegovernments \ lackofphysicalevidence,suchasfingerprintsorDNA,implicating X himintherobbery.# XXXXؘC#XXX XFinally,defensecounselarguedthatthe   testimonyofonebankteller,alongwithasurveillancephotograph `  takenduringtherobbery,indicatedthattheHispanicrobberwas  \  tallerthanMr._ Gagnon_ .Appellantnotedthat_ Villar_ Ԁis,infact,   shorterthan_ Gagnon_ .# XXXX؅D#XXX XAppellantalsointroducedalibiwitnesses. d  # XXXX|F#XXX X  2.0 ` _ Postverdict_ ԀJurorInquiry ` ` (#` (#    AppellantwasconvictedonbothcountsonAugust24,2007 ( afterajurytrial.# XXXXF#XXX XHoursaftertheverdictwasdelivered,defense  counselreturnedtohisofficeandreceivedanemailentitled 0  JurorNo.66.Intheemail,thejurorstated:  ,  X XIfeltcompelledtosendthistoyou.IdontknowifI  shouldevenbedoingthisbutIdontcare.Iknowits ^ latebutIwantyoutoknowthattherewereatleast3 4 peopleonthatjurywhoactuallylistenedtothe  Z testimonywithanopenmind.Wetriedtomaketherest 0 payattention.Wemadethemgothrougheverypieceof  evidenceandeverywitness.Betweenuswepointedout   every_ discr[e]p[a]ncy_ .Theymadeupsomestoryto b ! explainitaway.IwantyoutoknowthatIwillgoto 8!" jailbeforeIever_ serve_ Ԁonanotherjury.Itwasawful. "^# Imsorrywecouldntdoanything.Wefinallydecidedto "4$ notprolongthatyoungmanshopeanylonger.Wecould # % havestayedthereforanotherweek.Theirmindswere $& madeupfromthefirstday.Heresoneexample,Aman f% ' said Iguesswereprofilingbut_ they_ Ԁcauseallthe <&!( trouble.WellIwontkeepyoulonger.AgainIam 'b") sorrywecouldntdomore.YouknowifIthoughthe '8#* wouldhavegottenadifferentkindofjurythenexttime  Ithink[I]wouldhavekeptthemthere.Thesepeopleare  thesaltoftheearthandthereisnograyintheir \ lives.Ireallyhopetheynevergetintothescalesof 2 blindjusticebecausesheisnt.GodblessyouandMary X keepyousafe. .  XKI XYI(AppelleesBr.App.a# XXXX4H#XXX Xt1(emphasisadded).)OnAugust27,2007,   defensecounselmovedtosetasidethejurysverdict,arguingthat 6   therewasthepossibilityofbiasandprejudiceonthepartofat  2  leastonejurorbasedupon_ Villar_ sHispanicethnicity.Thecourt   subsequentlysummonedthejurorwhocontacteddefensecounselto :  appearataspecialhearingonAugust28,2007toinquireaboutthe 6 email.    # XXXXP#XXX XWithrespecttothemotiontosetasidetheverdict,thetrial > courtstated# XXXXS#XXX X: : 8  Idontbelievethat[UnitedStates_ v._ ԀConnolly,341F.3d  16(1stCir.2003)]_ or_ Ԁ[Tannerv.UnitedStates,483U.S. l 107(1987)]givemetheauthorityifIchoosetobecause B I,forexample,attach!Ipersonallybelievethatethnic h biasissoreprehensibleinthedeliberativeprocessand > sodamaginganddangerous,thatifitwereuptome,if  Ihadahintofjurorbiasbasedonastatementfromone  jurorthatanotherjurormadeacommentwhichcould p  reflectracialbias,ifIwerebalancingthe F ! constitutionalinterestsversustheintereststhat !l" underlietherule,Imightbalancethatinterest !B# differently.Butitsnotuptome.Ifyouthinkitis, "$ letmeknow.IdontbelieveImfreetoinquiresimply #% becauseIattachrelativelygreaterweighttotheSixth t$& Amendmentinterestinafairtrialfreefromethnicbias J% ' than_ doestheSupremeCourtorthedrafters_ Ԁoftherule. &p!(   VT# XXXX T#XXX XHeconcludedthatbasedontheevidencehehadavailable,Rule '#* 606(b)didnotgivehim discretiontoact.# XXXXY#XXX XHealsonotedthat x)$, his instinctasatrialjudgewastodeveloptherecord $+t&. _ immediately_ Ԁ ratherthanwaiting18monthstodoit.# XXXXػZ#Defense  counselarguedthatundertheFourteenthAmendment,D #  3      ׀racialbias \ constitutesanexceptiontoRule606(b).However,therewasno X separatediscussionabouttheconstitutionalissues.XXX XConcluding   thathedidnothavetheauthorityorpowerundertheRuleto `  inquireintothematterfurtherthanverifyingthatthejurorhad,  \  infact,senttheemailtodefensecounsel,thetrialjudgeheld:# XXXX!]#XXX XԀ   # XXXXm^#8  XXX XIultimatelyhavetoapplytheRulesofEvidenceandthe d  SupremeCourtandFirstCircuitcaselawapplyingthose :  rulestothefactsofthiscase,anddoingthatI `  concludethatIamconstrainedfrombreachingthe 6 confidentialityofthedeliberativeprocessin   questioningthejuroronthebasisoftheemail,which  isallwehaveatthistimetocallintoquestionthe h integrityofthejurysdeliberativeprocess.# XXXX^#XXX X>    W W a a^# XXXXSa#XXX XAlimitedvoirdireofthejurorfollowedtoauthenticatethee : mail.    OnAugust31,2007,_ Villar_ Ԁfiledamotiontosetasidethe B jurysverdict,towhichthegovernmentobjected.OnOctober2, > 2007,thecourtissuedanendorsedorderdenying_ Villar_ smotion.  OnNovember27,2007,the_ Courtsentenced_ Ԁdefendant,andthis F ! timelyappealfollowed. # XXXXb# XXX X !B# e   # XXXXبd#  DISCUSSION  #% e  1.0  Rule606(b) f% ' (# (#      Contendingthatthejurorsemailcreatedapossibilitythat .'~") thejurywasraciallyorethnicallybiasedagainsthim,appellant (*$+ assertsthatthedistrictcourterredinitslegalconclusionthat  Rule606(b)barredanyinquiryintothepossibilityofbiaswithin \ thejuryroom. X   Athresholdissueistheappropriatestandardofreview.The   partiesarguethattheabuseofdiscretionstandardgovernsthe `  trialjudgesapplicationofRule606(b). Thedistrictcourts  \  responsetoanallegationofjurormisconductisgenerallyreviewed   onlyforabuseofdiscretion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Connolly,341 d  F.3d16,3334(1stCir.2003)(citingUnitedStatesv.Ortiz `  _ Arrigoitia_ ,996F.2d436,442(1stCir.1993);Mahoneyv.   _ Vondergritt_ ,938F.2d1490,1492(1stCir.1991)). Here,however, h thetrialcourtjudgeseemedtobemakingarulingoflaw,because d hefoundhelacked discretiontoactormakeanyinquiryunder  Rule606(b)basedonlyonthejuroremail.Therefore,the l appropriatestandardofreviewofthatlegalrulingisdenovo. h Janeirov.UrologicalSurgery_ Profl_ Ԁ_ Assn_ ,457F.3d130,139(1st  Cir.2006). p    FederalRuleofEvidenceRule606(b)_ states_ : !l" 8  Uponaninquiryintothevalidityofaverdictor "$ indictment,ajurormaynottestifyastoanymatteror #% statementoccurringduringthecourseofthejury's t$& deliberationsortotheeffectofanythinguponthator J% ' anyotherjuror'smindoremotionsasinfluencingthe  &p!( jurortoassenttoordissentfromtheverdictor &F") indictmentorconcerningthejuror'smentalprocessesin '#* connectiontherewith.Butajurormaytestifyabout(1) (#+ whetherextraneousprejudicialinformationwasimproperly x)$, broughttothejury'sattention,(2)whetheranyoutside N*%- influencewasimproperlybroughttobearuponanyjuror, $+t&. or(3)whethertherewasamistakeinenteringthe +J'/ verdictontotheverdictform.Ajuror'saffidavitor  evidenceofanystatementbythejurormaynotbe8 @]   receivedonamatteraboutwhichthejurorwouldbe \ precludedfrom8   testifying.2   Fed.R._ Evid_ .606(b).Rule606(b)codifiesthe firmlyestablished . commonlawrulethatprohibitsadmissionofjurortestimonyto   impeachajuryverdict.UnitedStatesv.Connolly,341F.3d16, 6   34(1stCir.2003)(quotingTannerv.UnitedStates,483U.S.107,  2  117(1987)).Thereareimportantpolicyconsiderationsunderlying   theRule,including finality,maintainingtheintegrityofthejury :  system,encouragingfrankandhonestdeliberations,andthe 6 protectionofjurorsfromsubsequentharassmentbyalosingparty,  andensuringpublicconfidenceinthejusticesystem.Id. "  >   Rule606(b)containsthreeexceptions,twoofwhich! :  extraneousprejudicialinformationand outsideinfluence!are  relevanttoouranalysis. Wehavewarnedthatcourtsgenerally B  shouldbehesitanttohauljurorsinaftertheyhavereacheda > verdicttoprobeforpotentialinstancesofbias,misconduct,or  extraneousinfluences.Id.(quoting_ Neron_ v._ Tierney_ ,841F.2d F ! 1197,1205(1stCir.1988))(alterationsomitted).A courtshould !B# onlyconductsuchaninquirywhenreasonablegroundsfor #% investigationexist,i.e.,thereisclear,strong,substantialand J% ' incontrovertibleevidencethataspecific,_ nonspeculative_  &F") improprietyhasoccurredwhichcouldhaveprejudicedthetrialof (#+ adefendant.Id.(quotingUnitedStates_ v._ ԀMoon,718F.2d1210, N*%- 1234(2dCir.1983)).  +J'/   ThekeycaseinthisareaisTannerv.UnitedStates,which  involvedallegations,broughttolightafterconviction,that \ severaljurorshadconsumedalcoholanddrugsduringlunchbreaks, X causingthemtosleepthroughtheafternoonsessionsofatrialand   possiblyaffectingtheirreasoningability.483U.S.at117.The `  Courtthererecognizedthecommonlawexceptiontothebaragainst  \  postverdictjurortestimonyincasesinvolvingan extraneous   influence.Id.at117(quoting_ Mattox_ v.UnitedStates,146U.S. d  140,149(1892)).The external/internaldistinctionemployedby `  theTannerCourtisnota _ locational_ Ԁdistinctionbutratheris    basedonthenatureoftheallegation.Id.at11718.Juror h testimonyaboutamattercharacterizedas externaltothejuryis d admissibleunderRule606(b),whiletestimonyabout internal  mattersisbarredbytheRule.Seeid.Explainingthatjuror l intoxicationdoesnotfitwithintheexceptiontoRule606(b)for h  outside_ influence[s_ ],butratherwasmoreproperlylabeledan  internalissue,theTannerCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdid p  noterrwhenitrefusedtoholdanevidentiaryhearing.Id.at125, !l" 127. "$   Usingthisframework,mostcourtshaveconcludedthatjuror t$& testimonyaboutracerelatedstatementsmadebydeliberatingjurors  &p!( doesnotfallwithineitherthe extraneousprejudicialinformation '#* orthe outsideinfluenceexceptionsofRule606(b),butdoesfall x)$, squarelywithinRule606(b)sprohibitionofpostverdictjuror $+t&. testimony.SeeUnitedStatesv._ Benally_ ,546F.3d1230,123638  (10thCir.2008)(holdingthatitwasanabuseofdiscretionforthe \ districtcourttoadmitevidenceofracialcommentsinthejuryroom X underRule606(b)sexceptions);_ Shillcutt_ v._ Gagnon_ ,827F.2d1155,   1159(7thCir.1987)(concludingthatRule606(b)wasintendedto `  precludeevidenceofracialslursduringjurydeliberations,because  \   [_ w]e_ Ԁcannotexpungefromjurydeliberationsthesubjectiveopinions   ofjurors,theirattitudinalexpositions,ortheirphilosophies) d  (internalcitationsomitted);Martinezv.FoodCity,Inc.,658F.2d `  369d,373(d5thCir.UnitAOct.1981)(statingthat jurortestimony   regardingthepossiblesubjectiveprejudicesorimpropermotivesof h individualjurorsisinadmissibleundertheRule).ButseeUnited d Statesv.Henley,238F.3d1111,111920(9thCir.2001)( Even  withoutcharacterizingracialbiasasextraneous,apowerfulcase l canbemadethatRule606(b)iswhollyinapplicabletoracialbias h because...[a]jurormaytestifyconcerninganymentalbiasin  mattersunrelatedtothespecificissuesthatthejurorwascalled p  upontodecide.)(quoting_ Rushen_ v.Spain,464U.S.114,121n.5 !l" (1983)(percuriam)andaddingemphasis) ). "$   WearepersuadedbythecourtsthathaveheldthatRule606(b), t$& byitsexpressterms,precludesanyinquiryintothevalidityofthe  &p!( verdictbasedonjurortestimonyregardingracialorethniccomments '#* made duringthecourseofdeliberations.Assuch,thetrialjudge x)$, didnotabusehisdiscretionorcommitanerroroflawwhenheheld $+t&. ,O ,e ,  thatRule606(b)precludedfurtherjurorinquiry. e   2.0  DueProcessandSixthAmendmentRights  (# (#   Appellantsmorepowerfulargumentisthattheapplicationof t Rule606(b)topreventjurortestimonyaboutracialorethnic   statementsmadeinjurydeliberationsisunconstitutional,violating 1  adefendantsrighttodueprocessundertheFifthAmendment,and  x  toatrialbyanimpartialjuryasguaranteedbytheSixth $  Amendment._ E #  4      _ ԀU.S.Const.amendsV,VI.Constitutionalissuesare 5  revieweddenovo.UnitedStates_ v._ ԀRosarioDiaz,202F.3d54,70 |  (1stCir.2000). (   TheConstitutionguaranteesacriminaldefendanttherightto 9 a fairtrialbyapanelofimpartial,indifferentjurors.The  failuretoaccordanaccusedafairhearingviolateseventhe , minimalstandardsofdueprocess.Irvin_ v._ ԀDowd,366U.S.717,722 = (1961)(internalcitationsomitted).Onetouchstoneofafairtrial  isanimpartialtrieroffact! ajurycapableandwillingto 0 decidethecasesolelyontheevidencebeforeit.McDonoughPower e Equip.,Inc.v.Greenwood,464U.S.548,554(1984)(quotingSmith  v.Phillips,455U.S.209,217(1982)(habeascaseinvolvingclaims X ofdenialofdueprocessduetojurorbias)).Whenquestionsof i  jurorbiasareraised,theSupremeCourthaslongrecognizedthat    itwouldnotbesafetolaydownanyinflexiblerulebecausethere  \  mightbeinstancesinwhichsuchtestimonyofthejurorcouldnot m  beexcludedwithoutviolatingtheplainestprinciplesofjustice.   Thismightoccurinthegravestandmostimportantcases.... `  McDonaldv._ Pless_ ,238U.S.264,26869(1915);seealsoUnited q  Statesv._ Dioguardi_ ,492F.2d70,79n.12(2dCir.1974)(stating  therule thatpossibleinternalabnormalitiesinajurywillnot d beinquiredintoexceptinthegravestandmostimportantcases) u (quotingMcDonald,238U.S.at269)(emphasisadded). Theobvious ! difficultywithprejudiceinajudicialcontextisthatitprevents h theimpartialdecisionmakingthatboththeSixthAmendmentand y fundamentalfairplayrequire.  UnitedStatesv.Heller,785F.2d %  1524,1527(11thCir.1986)(reversingjuryverdictbasedonavoir  " direofdeliberatingjurorswherethe religiousprejudicedisplayed "4$ bythejurors...issoshockingtotheconscienceandpotentially E$& sodamagingtopublicconfidenceintheequityofoursystemof %!( justice,thatwemustactdecisivelytocorrectanypossibleharmful '8#* effectsonthisappellant); seealsoUnitedStatesv._ McClinton_ , I)$, 135F.3d1178,1185(7thCir.1998)( TheFifthandSixthAmendments *&. protectacriminaldefendantfromajuryslynchmobmentality e throughtheguaranteesofdueprocessoflawandtrialbyan  impartialjury.). X   Tannerdidnotaddresstheissueofracialbiasbutinstead i  involvedissuesofjurorcompetence.TheSupremeCourtrecognized   thatadefendanthasaSixthAmendmentrighttoanunimpairedjury,  \  butconcludedthat,becausetherewere severalaspectsofthetrial m  processthatcouldprotectthisright,thedistrictcourts   invocationofaruleofevidencetobarjurortestimonydidnot `  amounttoaconstitutionalviolation.Tanner,483U.S.at12627. q  TheCourtlistedvoirdire,observationsofthejurybycounseland  thecourtduringtrial,opportunitiesforjurorstoreport d inappropriatejurorbehaviorpriortorenderingaverdict,andthe u admissibilityofnonjurortestimonyastowrongdoingasexamples ! of othersourcesofprotectionforadefendantsSixthAmendment h rights.Id.at127. y    AfterTanner,courtshavestruggledwithitsapplicationto %  casesinvolvingthepossibilityofSixthAmendmentviolationsduring  l" jurydeliberations.Intwohabeaschallengesinvolvingstatecourt }"$ convictions,twocircuitshavesuggestedthattheuseofjuror )$& testimonymaybeappropriateintherarecasewheredueprocessand %p!( SixthAmendmentconcernsareimplicated.In_ Shillcutt_ ,theSeventh '#* CircuitheldthattheintentofRule606(b)wastoprecludepost -)$, verdictjurortestimony,butnonethelessproceededtoaddressthe *t&. constitutionalquestion: e 8  Theruleofjurorincompetencycannotbeappliedinsuch  anunfairmannerastodenydueprocess.Thus,further  reviewmaybenecessaryintheoccasionalcaseinorder X todiscovertheextremelyrareabusethatcouldexist . evenafterthecourthasappliedtheruleanddetermined i  theevidenceincompetent.Inshort,althoughourscope ?  ofreviewisnarrowatthisstage,wemustconsider   whetherprejudicepervadedthejuryroom,whetherthere    isasubstantialprobabilitythattheallegedracialslur  \  madeadifferenceintheoutcomeofthetrial. 2    827F.2dat1159(involvingthefollowingcommentmadebyajuror C  duringthelasttwentyminutesofsixhourdeliberations: Letsbe   logical;hesablack,andheseesaseventeenyearoldwhitegirl 6 !Iknowthetype. ).SeealsoAndersonv.Miller,346F.3d315, G 32729(2dCir.2003)(raisingconstitutionalconcernsregarding  scopeofRule606(b)spreclusionofjurortestimonyiftherewere : credibleallegationsthatajurorssafetywasthreatenedbyfellow K jurors);  butseeWilliamsv.Price,343F.3d223,22535(3dCir.  2003)(_ Alito_ ,J.)(applyingthenarrowhabeasstandardinacase > involvingallegationsthatonejurorcalledanothera nigger O lover,thecourtstatedthatTanner impliesthattheConstitution ! doesnotrequiretheadmissionofevidencethatfallswithinRule !B# 606(b)sprohibition,andassuch, thestatecourtsdidnot S#% violateclearlyestablishedFederallawinrefusingtoconsider $ ' thosestatements.). &F")    ManycourtshaverecognizedthatRule606(b)shouldnotbe W(#+ applieddogmaticallywherethereisapossibilityofjurorbias *%- duringdeliberationsthatwouldviolateadefendantsSixth +J'/ Amendmentrights.  See,e.g.,Heller,785F.2dat1527(involving e avoirdireofjurorswhomadeantiSemiticcomments);Wrightv.  UnitedStates,559F.Supp.1139,1151(_ E.D.N.Y._ Ԁ1983)( Certainly, X ifacriminaldefendantcouldshowthatthejurywasracially i  prejudiced,suchevidencecouldnotbeignoredwithouttramplingthe   [_ S]ixth_ Ԁ[_ A]mendment_ sguaranteetoafairtrialandanimpartial  \  jury.);Tobiasv.Smith,468F.Supp.1287,128990(_ W.D.N.Y._ Ԁ1979) m  (requiringanevidentiaryhearingwhenthepetitionerpresenteda   juroraffidavitdescribingtworaciallychargedstatementsallegedly `  madeduringdeliberations,includingtheremark [_ y]ou_ Ԁcanttell q  oneblackfromanother.Theyalllookalike.);Smithv.Brewer,  444F.Supp.482,490(S.D.Iowa1978)( Where...anofferof d proofshowedthattherewasasubstantiallikelihoodthatacriminal u defendantwasprejudicedbytheinfluenceofracialbiasinthejury ! room,toignoretheevidencemightverywelloffendfundamental h fairness);Commonwealthv._ Laguer_ ,410Mass.89,97,571N.E.2d y 371,376(1991)(concludingthat,althoughjurorbiascouldnotbe %  consideredadmissibleasanextraneousmatterunderthestatesnon  l" impeachmentrule(whichissimilartoFed.R.of_ Evid_ .606(b)),a }"$ hearingonthequestionofethnicslursagainstHispanicswas )$& neverthelessrequiredtodeterminewhethertheethnicallybiased %p!( statementsweremadebecausethe possibilityraisedbythe '#* affidavitthatthedefendantdidnotreceiveatrialbyanimpartial -)$, jury,whichwashisfundamentalright,cannotbeignored).See *t&. generallyRacistJurorMisconductDuringDeliberations,101_ Harv_ . e L.Rev.1595,1597(1988)( Althoughfewcourtshaveadmittedjuror  testimonyofracistjurymisconduct,mostcourtsatleast X acknowledgethat[_ R]ule_ Ԁ606(b)couldnotbeappliedtoexcludesuch i  evidenceif,takenatfacevalue,theevidenceestablisheda   constitutionalviolation.).  \     Recently,theTenthCircuitheldthatTannerprecludedinquiry m  intoclaimsthatraciststatementsweremadeinthejuryroomduring   thetrialofaNativeAmericandefendantforassaultinganofficer `  withadangerousweapon.Severaldaysafterthedefendantwas q  convicted,ajurorreportedtodefensecounselthat,during  deliberations,theforemaninsistedthat [_ w]hen_ ԀIndiansget d alcohol,theyallgetdrunkandthatwhentheygetdrunk,theyget u violent._ Benally_ ,546F.3dat1231.Severaljurorsapparently ! discussedtheneedto sendamessagebacktothereservation.Id. h at1232.Afterconsideringjuroraffidavits,thetrialcourtheld y thattwojurorsliedduringvoirdireabouttheirexperienceswith %  NativeAmericansandthatanewtrialwaswarranted.Id.TheTenth  l" Circuitreversed,assertingthatitis notnecessarilyinthe }"$ interestofoveralljusticetoattempttocure defectssuchas )$& possibleracialprejudiceinthejuryprocess: %p!( 8  AstheCourtsaidinTanner, Thereislittledoubtthat '#* _ postverdict_ Ԁinvestigationintojurormisconductwouldin W(#+ someinstancesleadtotheinvalidationofverdicts -)$, reachedafterirresponsibleorimproperjurorbehavior. *%- Itisnotatallclear,however,thatthejurysystem *t&. couldsurvivesucheffortstoperfectit.+J'/   Ї$Id.at1240(quotingTanner,483U.S.at120).TheTenthCircuit e turnedtothefourprotectionstheTannerCourtcharacterizedas  protectiveofadefendantsSixthAmendmentrights:thevoirdire X process,theabilityofthecourtandcounseltoobservejurors i  duringthetrial,theabilityofjurorstomakepreverdictreports   ofmisconduct,andtheavailabilityofpostverdictimpeachment  \  throughnonjurorevidenceofmisconduct.Id.( [_ I]n_ Ԁmostifnot m  allcases[theseprotections]servetoprotectthedefendantsSixth   Amendmentrightwithoutbreachingthebanonpostverdictjuror `  testimony.).AcknowledgingthatatleasttwoofTannerslisted q  protectionsmightnotbeeffectiveatidentifyingracist(asopposed  todrunken)jurors,the_ Benally_ courtconcludedthat,because jury d perfectionisanuntenablegoal,thesafeguardsnotedinTanner u weresufficientlyprotective.Id.(noting,however,thatajudge ! maynotbeabletoeasilyidentifyracistjurorsthroughobservation h andthat voirdiremightbeafeebleprotectionifajuroris y determinedtolie.).Thecourtrejectedthedefendantsattempt %  todistinguishTanneronthegroundsthatracialbiasisamore  l" seriousdangertothejusticesystemthanintoxicatedjurors. }"$ Acknowledging,though,thattheconstitutionalargumentwasthe )$&  mostpowerfulone,thecourtnonethelesswasskepticalofthe %p!( _ Shillcutt_ approach,concludingonanappellaterecordthatthiswas '#* nota case...wheretheverdictitselfwasshowntobebasedon -)$, thedefendantsraceratherthanontheevidenceandthelaw.Id. *t&. A A ,X A  at1239,1241.  e   Whiletheissueisdifficultandclose,webelievethatthe  ruleagainstjurorimpeachmentcannotbeappliedsoinflexiblyas X tobarjurortestimonyinthoserareandgravecaseswhereclaims i  ofracialorethnicbiasduringjurydeliberationsimplicatea   defendantsrighttodueprocessandanimpartialjury.Inour  \  view,thefourprotectionsreliedonbytheTannerCourtdonot m  provideadequatesafeguardsinthecontextofraciallyand   ethnicallybiasedcommentsmadeduringdeliberations.While `  individualpretrialvoirdireofthejurorscanhelptodisclose q  prejudice,ithasshortcomingsbecausesomejurorsmaybereluctant  toadmitracialbias.F #  5       Inaddition,visualobservationsofthejury d bycounselandthecourtduringtrialareunlikelytoidentify , jurorsharboringracialorethnicbias.Likewise,nonjurorsare = morelikelytoreportinappropriateconduct!suchasalcoholor  druguse!amongjurorsthanracialstatementsutteredduring 0 _ deliberations_ Ԁtowhichtheyarenotprivy. e   Accordingly,weconcludethatthedistrictcourtheredidhave  thediscretiontoinquireintothevalidityoftheverdictby X hearingjurortestimonytodeterminewhetherethnicallybiased i  statementsweremadeduringjurydeliberationsand,ifso,whether   thereisasubstantialprobabilitythatanysuchcommentsmadea  \  differenceintheoutcomeofthetrial.Theexperiencedtrialjudge m  inthiscasesuggestedthathemighthaveconductedsuchaninquiry   ifhehadpossessedthediscretiontodoso. `    Althoughweconcludethatthedistrictcourterredwhenit q  concludedthatithadnodiscretiontoholdaninquiryintopossible  biasinjurydeliberations,weemphasizethatnoteverystrayor d isolated_ offbasestatement_ Ԁmadeduringdeliberationsrequiresa u hearingatwhichjurytestimonyistaken.Ascourtsand ! commentatorshavehighlighted,theneedtoprotectafrankand h candidjurydeliberationprocessisastrongpolicyconsideration. y Still,attheotherextreme,therearecertainrareandexceptional %  casesinvolvingracialorethnic_ prejudicethatrequire_ Ԁhearingjury  l" testimonytodeterminewhetheradefendantreceivedafairtrial }"$ undertheSixthAmendment. Thedeterminationofwhetheraninquiry )$& isnecessarytovindicateacriminallyaccusedsconstitutionaldue %!( processandSixthAmendmentrightsisbestmadebythetrialjudge, '8#* whoismostfamiliarwiththestrengthoftheevidenceandbestable I)$, todeterminetheprobabilityofprejudicefromaninappropriate *&. racialorethniccomment.Thereisnothingabouttheevidencein e thiscasethatallowsustomakethisdeterminationonappeal.    Weneednotdecideherewhatproceduresthetrialjudgeshould X followifhedecidestomakesuchaninquiryonremand.SeeUnited i  Statesv._ Mikutowicz_ ,365F.3d65,74(1stCir.2004)( [A]district   courtmaintainssignificantdiscretionindeterminingthetypeof  \  investigationrequiredbyajurormisconductclaim.);Ortiz m  _ Arrigoitia_ ,996F.2dat443(notingthatatrialjudgeis not..   .shackledtoarigidandunyieldingset[of][sic]rulesand `  proceduresbutratheris vestedwiththediscretiontofashionan q  appropriateandresponsibleproceduretodeterminewhether  misconductactuallyoccurredandwhetheritwasprejudicial); d Mahoneyv._ Vondergritt_ ,938F.2dat1492(upholdingtrialjudges u decisionnottogobeyondapreliminaryinquiry,heldwithout ! counselpresent,intopostverdictallegationsthatjurorsdidnot h confinetheirdeliberationstoevidencepresentedattrial). y   XXX XDespiteourviewthatthereisaconstitutionalouterlimit, %  westressthatthepoliciesembodiedinRule606(b)andunderscored  l" inTannerareextremelyimportant;theruleitselfisrootedina }"$ longstandingconcernaboutintrudingintojurydeliberationsandthe )$& problemsthatwouldbecausedifjuryverdictscouldbeeasily %p!( underminedbypostjudgmentcommentsvolunteeredby(orinsome '#* cases)coaxedfromjurorswithsecondthoughts.Inthiscase,we -)$, donotsaythatwewouldnecessarilyhavepressedforfurther *t&. inquirybasedonthesomewhatterseandperhapsambiguousreportof e asinglejurorifthedistrictjudgehadnotindicatedhisinterest  indoingsobutforthebarofRule606(b),whichhedeemed X absolute.But,aswehavesaid,thedistrictjudgeisinthebest i  positiontomaketheinitialjudgment.Ifinthiscasehethinks   furtherinquiryappropriate,heisfreetoproceed;ifhethinksthe  \  passageoftimealtersthatinitialdisposition,thattooiswithin m  hisprovince.# XXXXm#     3.  Sentencing  `    XXX XIntheeventthetrialcourtconcludesthatthejuryverdict ( isvalid,weaddressAppellantssecondargument._ Villar_ Ԁcontends 9 thatthetrialcourterredinenhancinghissentencebyfourlevels  for otherwise_ us[ing_ ]apelletgun.Inhisview,hisconductof , stickingthegunintothebanktellersside# XXXX/#XXX Xamountedtonomore = thana _ brandish[ing_ ]ofadangerousweaponandwarrantsonlya  threeleveladjustment.Hearguesthatheshouldhaveonlyreceived 0 athreelevelenhancementfor _ brandish[ing_ ]aweapon.Wereview A  denovothedistrictcourtsinterpretationofthelanguageusedin  " theSentencingGuidelines.Itsfindingsoffactarereviewablefor "4$ clearerror.SeeUnitedStatesv._ LaFortune_ ,192F.3d157,160(1st E$& Cir.1999)(citingUnitedStatesv._ Nuez_ ԄRodriguez,92F.3d14,19 %!( (1stCir.1996)). '8#*   AfterasentencinghearingonJanuary22,2008,thedistrict I)$, courtsentencedtheAppellantto188months_ imprisonment_ .# XXXXA#XXX XThetotal *&. offenselevelwas32,includingafourlevelenhancementfor e  otherwiseuseofagun.# XXXX؜#XXX XInaddition,withrespecttothe  Appellantscriminalhistorycategorization,thetrialcourt X departeddownwardonelevelfromLevelVItoLevelV,resultingin i  aguidelinerangeof188to232months.# XXXXt#XXX XԀ     Section2B3.1(b)(2)(D)oftheSentencingGuidelinesprovides  \  thatafourleveladjustmentisappropriate ifadangerousweapon m  wasotherwiseusedduringarobbery.U.S.SentencingGuidelines   Manual2B3.1(b)(2)(D)(2008)(hereinafter_ U.S.S.G._ ).Underthe `  versionofthesentencingguidelinesineffectatthetimeofthe q  sentencinghearing,adangerousweaponis otherwiseusedifthe   conductdidnotamounttoadischargebutwasmorethan d brandishing,displaying,orpossessingafirearmorotherdangerous u weapon. Id.1B1.1_ cmt_ ._ n.1_ (I)# XXXX#XXX X._ G #  6      _ # XXXXr#XXX X Aweaponis brandishedif ! 8  allorpartoftheweaponwasdisplayed,orthepresence  oftheweaponwasotherwisemadeknowntoanotherperson, Z inordertointimidatethatperson,regardlessofwhether 0 theweaponwasdirectlyvisibletothatperson. k # XXXX(#XXX XAccordingly,althoughthedangerousweapondoesnothave A  tobedirectlyvisible,theweaponmustbepresent. !       Id.1B1.1# XXXX#XXX XԀ_ cmt_ ._ n.1_ _ (C_ ).# XXXXK#XXX X !^#   # XXXX#TheSentencingGuidelineswereamendedtoreflectthe o# % applicabledefinitionof brandishedonNovember1,2000.XXX XԀUnder % ' theearlierversion,_ H #  7      _ ԀthisCourtdrewthefollowinglinebetween e  _ brandish[ing_ ]and otherwise_ us[ing_ ]aweaponduringarobbery:# XXXX#XXX X! e XX!   X XAsweviewit,apersonmay brandishaweaponto X  advisethoseconcernedthathepossessesthegeneral . abilitytodoviolenceandthatviolenceisimminently i  andimmediatelyavailable.Ageneral,orevenpompous, ?  showingofweapons,involvingwhatonewouldconsideran   arrogantdemonstrationoftheirpresence,constitutesthe    generalizedwarningthattheseweaponsmaybe,inthe  \  future# XXXX؛#XXX X,usedandnotmerelybrandished.# XXXXb#Ԁ Alteringthis  2  generaldisplayofweaponrybyspecificallylevelinga m  cockedfirearmattheheadorbodyofabanktelleror C  customer,orderingthemtomoveorbequietaccordingto   one'sdirection,isacessationof brandishingandthe   commencementof otherwiseused. `   X XXXX X_ LaFortune_ ,192F.3dat16162 (findingthatadefendant otherwise q  usedaweaponbypointingagunatbanktellersandcustomers,  tellingthemto getdown).# XXXX؜#XXX X SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Cover,199 e F.3d1270,127879(11thCir.2000)(concludingthat,underthepre  2000Guidelines, theuseofafirearmtomakeanexplicitor X implicitthreatagainstaspecificpersonconstitutestheotherwise i  useofthefirearm);UnitedStatesv.Wooden,169F.3d674,676   (11thCir.1999)(holdingasemiautomatichandgunonehalfinch  \  fromvictimsforeheadinthecourseofarobberyconstitutes m   otherwiseuseoftheweapon)# XXXX#XXX X;# XXXXز# XXX XUnitedStatesv._ Yelverton_ ,197F.3d   531,534(D.C.Cir.1999)(statingthemajorityviewthatthe key `  consideration[aboutotherwiseuse]iswhetheragun...was q  pointedataspecificpersoninanefforttocreatefearsoasto  facilitatecompliancewithademand,andultimatelytofacilitate d thecommissionofthecrime). u   Although_ LaFortune_ wasdecidedunderanearlierversionofthe ! guidelines, thepartiesdonotarguethattheNovember1,2000 h amendmentofthe# XXXX#XXX XSentencingGuidelines,whichchangedthedefinition y of brandished,underminesthisCourtsholdingin_ LaFortune_ .The %  _ LaFortune_ courtfocusedonthe specific[]levelingofaweaponat  l" anotherpersonasopposedtoa generaldisplayofweaponryasthe }"$ demarcationbetween _ brandish[ing_ ]and otherwise_ us[ing_ ].192 )$& F.3dat161.# XXXX7#XXX XAssuch,thereasoningin_ LaFortune_ isfully %p!( consistentwiththeamendeddefinitionof brandished.Compare '#* _ U.S.S.G._ Ԁ1B1.1_ cmt_ .n# XXXX#XXX X.1_ (C_ )(1999)(describingabrandishedweapon -)$, asonethatwas pointedorwavedabout# XXXX>#XXX X)with_ U.S.S.G._ Ԁ1B1.1_ cmt_ . *t&. n# XXXX #XXX X.1_ (C_ )(2008)(defining _ brandish[ing_ ]asthe displayofthe e weapon,orwhether thepresenceoftheweaponwasotherwisemade  knowntoanotherperson).# XXXX #XXX X X   # XXXX# #XXX XAppellantarguesthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveappliedthe i  threelevelenhancementfor _ brandish[ing_ ]becausetherobbersmade   noreferencetothegunorexplicitthreatstoshootit.Headds  \  thatthetellerdidnotknowitwasagunwhenshefeltsomething m  inherside.Accordingtothebanktellerstestimonyattrial,   whileatfirstsheonlyfeltahardobjectatherside,onceinside `  thebank,shesawthatitwasagun.# XXXX؆ #XXX XTherobberalsopointedthe q  gunatanotherteller,orderinghertogetupfromherdeskandmove  tothecenterofthebank.# XXXX#XXX XThetellerswerelatertoldto geton d thefloorbeforetherobbersexitedthebank.# XXXX#XXX XԀThetrialjudge u foundthetellersversionsoftheeventtobecredible. !   This specificuseoftheweapontomakeanunmistakablyclear h andspecificthreatfallswithinthedefinitionof otherwiseused y underLaFortuneandtheSentencingGuidelines.Therefore,the %  districtcourtproperlyconcludedthatAppellant otherwiseused  l" aweaponforthepurposesofenhancingthesentence.# XXXX#XXX XԀ }"$   Fortheforegoingreasons,weremandforproceedingsconsistent )$& withthisopinion. %p!( # XXXX'#    XXX X# XXXXC#