"Answer Only What Confuses the Jury": Fourth Circuit Upholds Concise, Accurate Judicial Responses to Deliberation Questions in United States v. Brito (Unpublished)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date: October 7, 2025

Disposition: Affirmed (unpublished per curiam)

Introduction

This unpublished per curiam opinion affirms the conviction and 300-month sentence of Alfonso Roman Brito (“Casper”) for methamphetamine conspiracy and distribution. The decision offers clear, practice-oriented guidance on several recurring criminal appellate issues: post-verdict attacks on indictment sufficiency, sufficiency of the evidence in digital-and-prison-based conspiracies, a district court’s latitude to answer jury questions during deliberations, appellate review of sentencing, and the oral pronouncement requirement for supervised release conditions.

Appointed counsel filed an Anders v. California brief, arguing there were no meritorious issues but flagging five questions for the court’s consideration:

Whether the indictment adequately notified Brito of the charges;
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions;
Whether the district court erred by answering “yes” to a jury question about whether all recovered Facebook communications had been produced to the defense;
Whether the court miscalculated the Sentencing Guidelines range or imposed an unreasonable sentence; and
Whether the court adequately pronounced discretionary supervised release conditions.

The Fourth Circuit rejected each challenge and affirmed. Although unpublished and nonbinding, the opinion distills useful, transferable principles—most notably that a trial judge may give a succinct, accurate answer to a jury’s factual question during deliberations if accuracy is undisputed and the answer dispels confusion without prejudice.

Summary of the Opinion

Indictment adequacy (plain error): The indictment tracked the statutory elements, identified essential facts (dates and location), and allowed a future double-jeopardy plea; no plain error.
Sufficiency of the evidence (de novo): Substantial evidence—testimony from five witnesses including co-defendants, phone and Facebook records, recorded calls, and drug/lab evidence—supported the conspiracy and distribution counts despite Brito’s alternative explanation that others used the accounts and phone. Credibility conflicts are for the jury.
Jury question during deliberations (abuse of discretion): The district court did not abuse its discretion by answering “yes” to whether the Government had produced all recovered Facebook communications to the defense, where accuracy was undisputed, the answer was concise, and it directly addressed juror confusion without prejudice.
Sentencing (abuse of discretion): The Guidelines range of 360 months to life was properly calculated; the court reasonably varied downward to 300 months with a thorough explanation, including comparative culpability, cooperation disparities, and Brito’s personal history. The below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable.
Supervised release conditions (Rogers compliance): The district court adequately pronounced discretionary conditions via permissible incorporation.
Anders review: Independent review revealed no meritorious issues; the judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Plain-error review and indictment sufficiency
- United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2018): Articulates the four-part plain error standard. Because Brito did not challenge the indictment below, this high bar governed.
- United States v. Barringer, 25 F.4th 239 (4th Cir. 2022): An indictment must contain the offense elements, fairly inform the defendant, and permit a double-jeopardy defense later; it must also state essential facts. The court used this framework to uphold the charging document.
- United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2004): Post-verdict challenges to indictment sufficiency are afforded strong presumptions in favor of sufficiency. This deference, combined with plain error review, all but foreclosed Brito’s challenge.
Elements and sufficiency of the evidence
- United States v. Ath, 951 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2020): Sets the elements for a drug conspiracy—agreement, knowledge, and voluntary participation.
- United States v. Purks, 139 F.4th 388 (4th Cir. 2025): Recites the elements for distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), which the court used to frame Count 22.
- United States v. Wysinger, 64 F.4th 207 (4th Cir. 2023); United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390 (4th Cir. 2022): Define the “substantial evidence” standard and reinforce the principle that juries, not appellate courts, resolve credibility disputes and competing interpretations of evidence.
Responding to jury questions during deliberations
- United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Banks, 29 F.4th 168 (4th Cir. 2022): The district court’s decision to answer and the form of any answer are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires prejudice in context.
- United States v. Burgess, 684 F.3d 445 (4th Cir. 2012): The court must respond accurately to the apparent source of juror confusion without creating prejudice. Burgess provides the controlling principle the panel applied to uphold the one-word “yes” answer.
Sentencing review
- United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 2020): All sentences are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
- United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2020); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007); United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019): Set the procedural/substantive framework—correct Guidelines calculation, consideration of § 3553(a), adequate explanation, and review for reasonableness in light of the totality of the circumstances.
- United States v. Devine, 40 F.4th 139 (4th Cir. 2022): A sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable in the Fourth Circuit; the defendant bears the burden to rebut that presumption.
Supervised release conditions
- United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020): District courts must orally pronounce all discretionary supervised release conditions at sentencing, but may satisfy that obligation by incorporation. The panel held this standard was met.

Collectively, these authorities provided the scaffolding for each holding: strict standards for unpreserved claims, high deference to jury factfinding, a practical approach to juror confusion, and structured, deferential sentencing review.

Legal Reasoning

1) Indictment Sufficiency (Plain Error, Post-Verdict)

Brito did not challenge the indictment below, triggering plain error review under Harris. The court added a further hurdle from Quinn: post-verdict, “every intendment” supports the indictment’s sufficiency. Against that backdrop, the indictment’s tracking of the statutory elements (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846; and 18 U.S.C. § 2), and its inclusion of essential facts (dates and location) satisfied Barringer and Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). The ability to plead double jeopardy against future prosecution for the same offenses was preserved. No plain error was shown.

2) Sufficiency of the Evidence (De Novo Review, Substantial Evidence)

The panel applied the well-established substantial-evidence standard, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government and leaving credibility assessments to the jury (Wysinger, Robinson). The government’s case spanned witness testimony (including two co-defendants), corroborating digital and telephonic records, recorded calls, and drug seizure/lab reports. The central defense theory—shared inmate use of phones/accounts and “cherry-picked” Facebook messages—created interpretive conflicts, but those are entrusted to jurors. On this record, a rational juror could find the elements of conspiracy (Ath) and distribution (Purks) beyond a reasonable doubt.

3) Judicial Responses to Jury Questions: Concision + Accuracy + No Prejudice

During deliberations, jurors asked whether the government had provided all recovered Facebook communications to the defense. The district court answered “yes.” On appeal, the court treated the response under Foster and Burgess, emphasizing that a trial judge should address the apparent source of confusion “accurately, without creating prejudice.” Several features mattered:

The question targeted a discrete, objective point (discovery completeness), not an evaluative judgment of the evidence’s weight.
The government’s assertion that it had produced all Facebook records was undisputed at trial; Brito objected to answering the question but did not contest accuracy.
The one-word answer was the most concise, least prejudicial way to resolve apparent juror confusion about the defense’s “missing records” theme.
After answering, the court reconfirmed with the parties that production had indeed been complete.

Given these circumstances, the panel found no abuse of discretion and no prejudice “in the context of the record as a whole.” This application of Burgess underscores that judges may provide succinct, accurate clarifications to cure juror confusion, particularly where the fact is undisputed and the answer does not opine on guilt or credibility.

4) Sentencing: Procedural and Substantive Reasonableness

On procedural reasonableness, the panel detected no miscalculation of the advisory Guidelines (360 months to life). The district court addressed and resolved objections to the presentence report, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and provided a thorough explanation for a downward variance to 300 months. On substantive reasonableness, the court highlighted:

Brito’s positive pre-incarceration history and pressures of prison life;
Comparative culpability: Brito’s role as supplier versus a co-defendant with a worse criminal history but who accepted responsibility and cooperated;
The below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable under Devine, and Brito failed to rebut that presumption.

This analysis conforms to Gall’s framework as applied in Fowler and Provance.

5) Supervised Release Conditions: Oral Pronouncement via Incorporation

Under Rogers, district courts must orally pronounce all discretionary supervised release conditions, but may satisfy the requirement through incorporation (for example, by adopting conditions set forth in a written document referenced at sentencing). The panel concluded that the district court complied with this rule, foreclosing any Rogers error.

Impact and Practical Implications

A. Jury Communications: A Blueprint for Minimalist Clarification

This opinion validates a pragmatic approach to juror confusion: when accuracy is undisputed and the question targets a narrow, collateral procedural fact (e.g., completeness of discovery production), a concise response can be appropriate. Defense counsel should anticipate that raising “missing evidence” themes (e.g., “the government didn’t show you everything”) may prompt juror questions. Three practice pointers emerge:

Consider requesting a limiting instruction that the jury should decide the case on admitted evidence, without speculating about materials not in evidence, to avoid inferences from undisclosed or unadmitted items.
If an answer risks prejudice, propose alternative language that directs jurors back to the evidentiary record without affirmatively stating facts outside the record.
Preserve accuracy disputes contemporaneously; an undisputed record greatly increases the likelihood that a concise answer will be upheld.

B. Indictment Challenges: High Bar After Verdict

Post-verdict, plain-error review combined with Quinn’s presumption of sufficiency makes indictment attacks exceptionally difficult. Defense counsel should press indictment defects before trial to avoid the near-insurmountable post-verdict posture.

C. Digital Evidence and Prison-Based Conspiracies

The opinion reflects a trend: multi-source corroboration (co-defendant testimony, digital footprints, recorded calls, and physical evidence) readily clears the substantial-evidence threshold. Alternative explanations (e.g., shared devices/accounts) rarely prevail without strong corroboration. Pretrial litigation on authentication, access logs, and device attribution may be critical if identity or authorship is contested.

D. Sentencing Disparities and Role

Arguments premised on codefendant disparities must grapple with role and cooperation. Here, the district court emphasized supplier-level culpability and the co-defendant’s acceptance of responsibility/cooperation. Those factors can justify divergent sentences even where the comparator has a “worse” criminal history. The presumption of reasonableness for below-Guidelines sentences in the Fourth Circuit (Devine) is a formidable hurdle on appeal.

E. Supervised Release Conditions

The court’s endorsement of pronouncement-by-incorporation underscores a workable compliance path with Rogers. Counsel should ensure the record clearly identifies the incorporated document and its conditions at sentencing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anders brief: When appointed counsel believes an appeal is frivolous, they file a brief identifying anything that could arguably support the appeal and request to withdraw. The appellate court independently reviews the record. If no non-frivolous issues are found, it affirms and permits withdrawal. Counsel must inform the defendant of the right to seek Supreme Court review.
Plain error (appellate standard): A four-part test: (1) an error occurred, (2) it was “plain” (clear/obvious), (3) it affected substantial rights (usually prejudicial), and (4) it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Indictment sufficiency: An indictment must set out the offense elements, essential supporting facts (e.g., dates/locations), provide fair notice to the defendant, and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy in future proceedings for the same offense.
Substantial evidence: Enough evidence that a reasonable juror could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations.
Abuse of discretion: Deferential review of discretionary trial management decisions (e.g., responding to jury questions). Reversal occurs only if the decision was unreasonable and caused prejudice in context.
Guidelines reasonableness and presumption: In the Fourth Circuit, a sentence within or below the properly calculated Guidelines range is presumed substantively reasonable. The defendant must show it is unreasonable given the § 3553(a) factors.
Supervised release conditions—oral pronouncement: Discretionary conditions must be stated at sentencing, but a court can comply by expressly incorporating a set of written conditions into the oral pronouncement.

Conclusion

United States v. Brito reaffirms several bedrock doctrines and provides practical guidance on handling juror confusion during deliberations. The Fourth Circuit held that:

Post-verdict indictment challenges reviewed for plain error and under Quinn’s presumption almost never succeed when the indictment tracks statutory elements and includes essential facts.
Multi-source corroborated digital and testimonial evidence meets the substantial-evidence standard despite alternative narratives about shared devices or accounts.
District courts may answer juror questions with concise, accurate statements that directly address the source of confusion without creating prejudice—here, a one-word “yes” about discovery completeness—consistent with Burgess.
Thoroughly explained downward variances from a properly calculated Guidelines range will generally withstand appellate review; within/below-Range sentences are presumptively reasonable in the Fourth Circuit.
Rogers’s oral pronouncement requirement for supervised release conditions can be satisfied by clear incorporation.

Although unpublished and nonprecedential, Brito’s core message is operational: accuracy-first, minimalist answers to juror confusion are permissible when undisputed and non-prejudicial; robust, corroborated digital-and-testimonial records will typically carry the day on sufficiency; and reasoned, individualized sentencing explanations remain the backbone of affirmance on appeal.