The Court Said
Sixth Circuit keeps Terrence London’s jury notes sealed, convictions intact
The panel refused to pry into notes that described bias in the jury room and a fight over one juror’s not-guilty vote. It also said the later lawyer issue did not amount to an actual conflict requiring a new trial.
Terrence London could not get the Sixth Circuit to reopen his case. The judges said the jury notes were part of private deliberations, and they found no conflict problem serious enough to disturb the convictions.
- Juror notes about bias and a loud dispute stayed sealed inside deliberations.
- Rule 606(b) blocked post-verdict probing into the jury room.
- A later lawyer-overlap claim failed because no actual conflict was shown.
- The Sixth Circuit left London’s convictions untouched.
- The Sixth Circuit left Terrence London’s convictions in place after saying juror complaints about bias and a loud argument over a not-guilty vote stayed inside the jury room, where Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) keeps them off-limits to post-verdict probing
The Sixth Circuit left Terrence London’s convictions in place after saying juror complaints about bias and a loud argument over a not-guilty vote were part of private jury deliberations and not something the judge had to probe after the verdict. The panel also said the district judge did not have to interview a juror or order a new trial on that ground.
The same decision rejected a later conflict claim tied to attorney Sunny Koshy’s overlapping representation of London and MNPD analyst Kayla Fulton. Because Koshy did not realize the overlap created a potential problem, the court said London did not show the kind of divided loyalty that would justify reopening the case.
A fight the court would not pry into
The jury notes were stark. One, signed by the foreperson, said: “We have a juror that won’t set aside their personal bias and won’t discuss. We don’t know what to do.” Another, signed by Juror 5, said: “Juror is getting loud with my not guilty verdict.” But the panel treated both notes as part of the jury’s internal deliberations, not outside influence.
That distinction mattered. Under Rule 606(b), courts usually cannot revisit what jurors said to each other once deliberations have begun. Juror 5’s brief hesitation when the verdict was polled did not change that; he ultimately confirmed the verdict as his own.
A conflict discovered after trial
London’s second argument was about timing as much as loyalty. Koshy later represented MNPD analyst Kayla Fulton while still counsel of record for London, but the overlap ran from November 2023 through April 2024 and came to light only after trial ended. The court said Koshy did not know about Fulton’s connection to London’s case until April 2024.
Without that knowledge, the panel said, Koshy was never forced to choose between competing clients, and London failed to show any adverse effect on his performance. That left no basis for a new trial, and no reason to disturb the convictions already on the books.
Why the ruling matters
The opinion draws a narrow but important line for criminal defendants. Internal jury-room friction, even when it sounds ugly, usually stays protected, and a later-discovered overlap in representation does not by itself undo a verdict unless it can be tied to real conflict and harm.
For London, that meant the case ended where it stood before the appeal: the convictions remain intact, and the post-trial attacks did not get him a second chance before a jury.