USA v. Reid

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD
Gordon Reid
O R D E R
Gordon Reid has filed a motion to supplement the record, a
motion for a nondisclosure order, and a motion to speak to
jurors. The court addresses these motions as follows.
1. Motion to Supplement the Record
Before the first trial, Reid claimed that he was being
prosecuted on the Hobbs Act charge because of his race. He
sought discovery related to a claim of selective prosecution. On
January 13, 2006, the court denied Reid’s requests for discovery
because he had failed to make the necessary showing. See Order,
1/13/2006, doc. no. 60 (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517
U.S. 456, 468 (1996)).
In support of the opposition to Reid’s discovery requests,
the government provided an Assistant United States Attorney’s
affidavit contradicting Reid’s selective prosecution theory,
which among other things showed that similar charges had been
brought against non-African-American defendants. The court noted
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 4

2
that a quick review of the court’s docket for some of the cases
listed by the government supported the government’s
representation.
Five months later, Reid asks the court to “produce for the
record any and all information relied upon by this court in
arriving at the within referenced conclusion(s).” The materials
submitted by the government in support of its opposition to
Reid’s motions are sufficient. No supplementation of the record
is necessary or appropriate.
2. Motion for Nondisclosure Order
Reid acknowledges that the court previously granted his
motion to have all witnesses sequestered from the courtroom until
they have testified and are discharged. That order directed the
government and standby counsel to instruct all witnesses that a
sequestration order is in effect and that they are not to discuss
their testimony with other witnesses. Reid now asks the court to
prohibit the government from “relaying to any lay witness the
testimony of any expert witness, or other lay witness, in whole
or part, whether directly or indirectly.” The government
responds that “[u]ndersigned counsel understands the intention of
a sequestration order, and as officers of the Court, will not
disclose any witness’ testimony to any other witness.”
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 4

3
No additional order on the issue of witness sequestration is
necessary. However, to avoid any misunderstanding, the order
issued on March 28, 2006, prohibits counsel, parties, and their
representatives in this case from conveying the testimony of any
witness to another witness who will testify at trial.
3. Motion to Speak to Jurors
Reid moves for leave, through a representative, to speak to
any of the jurors from the first trial who would consent to do
so. He maintains that because the first trial ended in a hung
jury, any input from the jurors who served on the first jury
would help in his preparation for the second trial. The
government opposes Reid’s motion on the ground that the
extraordinary circumstances necessary for such communication do
not exist in this case.
The government correctly points out that the local rules of
this district and First Circuit precedent prohibit counsel,
parties, or their representatives from communicating with former
jurors absent extraordinary circumstances and a sufficient
showing of good cause. See LR 47.3; Dall v. Coffin, 970 F.2d
964, 971 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Kepreos, 759 F.2d 961,
967 (1st Cir. 1985). Reid’s asserted need for input from the
former jurors in this case does not approximate the extraordinary
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 4

4
circumstances that might justify such contact. See, e.g., United
States v. Houston, 205 F. Supp. 2d 856, 869 n.12 (W.D. Tenn.
2002). In addition, at the time the mistrial was declared, with
the consent of the parties, the court asked the foreperson of the
jury what the split was. The foreperson responded that there
were eleven jurors in favor of a guilty verdict and one juror in
favor of a not guilty verdict. This provides the defendant with
sufficient information to assist him in preparing his case.
Therefore, the motion is denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to
supplement (document no. 314), motion for a nondisclosure order
(document no. 316), and motion to speak to jurors (document no.
317) are denied.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 27, 2006
cc: Gordon Reid, pro se
Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esquire
Clyde R. W. Garrigan, Esquire
Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire
U.S. Probation
U.S. Marshal
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 337 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 4