9th Cir.

USA v. Sanchez

May 12, 2026 ·23-2533 ·Published ·Jennifer Sung · By James Taylor

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a new trial for a defendant convicted of tax fraud due to the presence of a racially biased juror during deliberations. The court held that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard and that the government failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 3:23

Background

Andres Sanchez was convicted on six counts of preparing and presenting false and fraudulent tax returns. During jury deliberations, Juror 5 made racially biased comments about Mexicans. Juror 16 reported the comments, leading to a special voir dire where other jurors confirmed hearing the bias. The district court excused Juror 5 but proceeded with an eleven-member jury, denying Sanchez’s motion for a new trial by applying the standard from United States v. Sarkisian.

The court’s reasoning

The panel held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard. The court rejected the argument that the presence of a biased juror constitutes structural error under Dyer v. Calderon. Instead, the court ruled that when a racially biased juror is discovered and excused before the verdict is accepted, the correct standard is United States v. Remmer, which establishes a heavy presumption of prejudice. Applying the Remmer standard, the court concluded the government did not effectively rebut the presumption that the biased juror’s presence prejudiced Sanchez.

The dissent

He wrote that the majority (1) rejected this court’s binding precedent in Sarkisian to conclude the district court applied an incorrect legal standard; (2) incorrectly extended Remmer’s presumption of prejudice to situations where, absent any outside contact to or from the jury itself, a racially biased juror participates in some jury deliberations but is removed from the jury following a report of misconduct by a juror to the judge and before the jury’s final verdict is reached and the trial court accepts the verdict; and (3) created an insurmountable standard that the Government must satisfy to rebut the newly fabricated presumption of prejudice.

Carlos T. Bea

What it means going forward

The case is remanded for a new trial. The ruling clarifies that the Remmer presumption of prejudice applies to internal jury bias involving a juror excused before the verdict, shifting the burden to the government to prove harmlessness.

Play