Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err I denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his drug and tax-fraud convictions on grounds that he was denied right to fair trial six years ago when jury deliberated one day without twelfth juror, who had called in sick on said day. While record suggested that one juror had called in sick while jury was scheduled to deliberate, and that certain responses from jurors were ambiguous as to whether deliberations occurred without sick juror, Dist. Ct. could rely on its usual practice of sending jurors home when juror calls in sick in finding that defendant had failed to establish that jury had in fact deliberated without all twelve members. Ct. further noted that Dist. Ct. had violated Rule 606(b) by admitting evidence of interviews with jurors concerning question as to whether one member of jury was absent during deliberations.