Back to Articles

Seventh Circuit Affirms Musselman Convictions Despite Juror Outside Research and Ostrich Instruction (Aug. 27, 2026)

TL;DR:

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Carrie Musselman’s healthcare-fraud convictions, rejecting defense challenges based on a juror’s outside online research and the district court’s use of an ostrich instruction. The court applied the Remmer and Olano frameworks and held the intrusion was harmless, given the foreperson’s limited, non–case-related research and the jurors’ unanimous verdicts after voir dire and polling. The decision reinforces that not every juror-contact event requires a new trial and that a district court’s curative measures can be constitutionally sufficient if the record shows no reasonable possibility that the intrusion affected the verdict. For trial teams, this underscores the value of clear trial rules on juror conduct, careful documentation of misconduct concerns, and strategic use of corrective jury instructions when handling potential juror misconduct. Objection Academy users can translate these lessons into targeted objection and impeachment drills, enhancing trial-readiness for juror-mcommunication issues and Remmer-type challenges.

Key facts and holding

United States v. Musselman, a matter decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on August 27, 2026, involved a chiropractor charged with healthcare fraud and related wire counts. After a 13-day jury trial, Musselman moved for a new trial on two grounds: (1) a juror’s outside internet research found in the jury room and (2) the district court’s use of an ostrich instruction informing jurors that knowledge includes deliberate avoidance of knowledge. The district court conducted a Remmer-based assessment and concluded that the intrusion did not prejudice the defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that even if the Remmer presumption applied, the government rebutted it and that the court did not abuse its discretion in applying the “ultimate inquiry” under Olano to determine whether the intrusion affected the verdict. The opinion details how the foreperson admitted to researching how to be a good foreperson online, and how the research material did not enter the jury room or influence deliberations in a way that connected to Musselman’s guilt. The court reaffirmed that harmlessness can justify denial of a new trial where the evidence shows no reasonable possibility of prejudice. (media.ca7.uscourts.gov)

Practical implications for trial teams

  • Juror misconduct and outside research post-verdict: The Musselman decision reinforces the principle that outside information possessed by a juror does not automatically mandate a new trial. Courts will weigh whether the intrusion likely affected deliberations and the verdict using the Olano framework, with a heavy emphasis on the record showing how the information actually related to the case. Trial teams should adopt robust procedures for detecting, documenting, and addressing juror conduct that touches on external sources, while recognizing that remedial measures may suffice when the intrusion is shown to be harmless. (media.ca7.uscourts.gov)
  • Remmer framework and rebuttal: The Seventh Circuit emphasized that Remmer’s presumption is not irrebuttable. If the government can demonstrate that corrective instructions and careful questioning effectively neutralized the risk of prejudice, a trial court may deny relief even where juror contact occurred. This provides litigators with a clear appellate standard for arguing, or resisting, new-trial motions based on juror misconduct. (media.ca7.uscourts.gov)
  • Ostrich instruction as a tool, not a trap: The court’s analysis confirms that a properly tailored ostrich instruction can be a permissible curative measure when jurors may have accessed information suggesting knowledge or awareness beyond the defendant’s conduct. Counsel can consider invoking such instructions strategically where there is a risk of “deliberate avoidance” knowledge, provided the district court’s use is supported by the record. (media.ca7.uscourts.gov)

Strategic takeaways for trial teams

  • Voir dire and juror education: Use targeted voir dire to elicit potential sources of outside information jurors may consult, including the internet. This helps calibrate expectations and design appropriate admonitions or curative instructions if needed. The Musselman framework suggests focusing not just on whether misconduct occurred, but on whether it could have affected deliberations.
  • Documentation and post-trial steps: Preserve and document any concerns about juror conduct, including what was found, when, and how it was addressed by the court. A clear record helps the trial court assess harmlessness and supports appellate review if a post-trial motion arises.
  • Curative instructions and polling: Consider asking the court to poll jurors on their verdict and to tailor curative instructions to the specific issue. Musselman demonstrates that a well-supported curative intervention, coupled with juror polling, can sustain a verdict even when an outside source enters the crucible of deliberations.
  • Objection Academy integration: Training on objections, admissibility hurdles, and objectively articulating the potential impact of juror conduct can sharpen trial teams’ readiness. Simulated trials that include a juror’s external research scenario, followed by the use of a precise ostrich-type instruction or other corrective measures, can build muscle memory for real-world trial environments.

How Objection Academy helps in light of Musselman

Objection Academy equips trial teams with realistic objection drills that mirror high-stakes situations like juror misconduct or erroneous trial-stage communications. Practicing precise, on-point objections to inadmissible or prejudicial information and rehearsing responses to Remmer/Olano-type questions helps attorneys preserve trial integrity when juror conduct becomes an issue. The platform’s emphasis on objection discipline, witness credibility, and systematic trial-readiness aligns well with the Musselman takeaway: preparedness, precise instruction, and a measured, evidence-based approach to mitigate juror-influence risks.

Evergreen relevance and next steps

While Musselman centers on a criminal healthcare-fraud context, the underlying principles about juror conduct, Remmer-based concerns, and the use of corrective instructions have broad appellate and trial-law implications. Plaintiffs and defendants alike benefit from disciplined jury-management practices, especially as courts increasingly encounter issues arising from jurors accessing information online during trials. Trial teams should:

  • Review their juror conduct guidelines and draft language for Remmer-type challenges.
  • Update checklists for post-verdict motions to include juror misconduct considerations and potential curative alternatives.
  • Leverage training resources like Objection Academy to translate these principles into practical courtroom skills, particularly in objection handling, evidence evaluation, and trial-readiness drills.

Conclusion

The August 27, 2026 Musselman decision underscores that a trial verdict can withstand scrutiny when a district court’s remedial actions and careful record support the conclusion that an intrusion did not prejudice the defendant. For practitioners, the case offers tangible guidance on how to handle juror misconduct claims, how to frame and respond to Remmer/Olano analyses, and how to incorporate precise, practical trial training into daily practice. Objection Academy remains a valuable tool for building the reflexes and discipline necessary to navigate these nuanced evidentiary and juror-related challenges in the modern courtroom.

Sources:

More Legal InsightsExplore MCLE Eligibility