On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Construed as an Appeal
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:20-cr-00142-1—Douglas Russell Cole, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 23, 2022
Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Alexander Sittenfeld, a criminal defendant
convicted by a jury in the district court, has filed a motion in this court to compel a forensic
examination of a juror’s cellphone, computer, or “any electronic device that [the juror] used to
make electronic communications.” Sittenfeld presented this same motion to the district court,
which denied it. United States v. Sittenfeld, No. 1:20-cr-142, Dkt. 234 (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 3, 2022)
(sealed). We construe Sittenfeld’s motion as an appeal from that order.1
Sittenfeld’s argument prompted a precursor question that had not been addressed, so we
asked for additional briefing on this question: What legal authority empowers a court to order a
juror to provide his or her cellphone, computer, or other electronic devices to the court for it to
conduct—or permit a party to conduct—a search or forensic examination of the juror’s devices?
Because a court’s inherent or statutory authority in conducting a Remmer hearing does
not include an unlimited, inquisitorial power to order jurors to surrender their personal
possessions, such as their electronic devices, or to divulge their passwords, we hold that the
district court had no power to order a forensic examination of the juror’s devices. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Sittenfeld’s motion and alert the district court that any
further aspects of the Remmer hearing must comply with this opinion. |