Page 3 of 40
severe, thus suggesting the juror knew the possible penalties—information thatcould only have come from a source other than the evidence presented at trial.
ECF Nos. 467-12, 467-13, 467-14 & 467-15.On September 29, 2006, the defendants moved for a new trial. ECF No.467. One ground was juror misconduct: that some of the jurors deliberatedprematurely and without all the jurors participating, as purportedly shown by theemails, and improperly considered extrinsic information, as shown by the emailsand other sources, including media accounts of post-verdict interviews with jurors.The defendants asked for leave to contact the jurors to investigate; they could notdo so without leave because a local rule prohibits the parties and attorneys fromcontacting the jurors after a trial and the court had entered an order in this caseexplicitly confirming the ban.
N.D. Ala. Loc. R. 47.1; ECF No. 255 at 3. Thedefendants also asked for entry of an order initiating a broader investigation:requiring all 12 jurors to list their email and text-message providers; allowing thedefendants to subpoena the providers; and requiring two of the jurors to preservetheir computers without deleting any information. ECF No. 467 at 13-15. Mr.Siegelman separately moved for entry of an order requiring the two jurors topreserve all their emails and text messages. ECF No. 469. The defendants laterasked for an order requiring the two jurors to turn over their computers so that aforensic examination could be conducted. ECF Nos. 496, 506.
Case No: 2:05cr119
Case 2:05-cr-00119-MEF -CSC Document 1024 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 40