X. Jury Issues
A. Jury Instructions
B. Juror Bias/Misconduct
C. Voir Dire - Fair and Impartial Jury
E. Miscellaneous Jury Issues
Miscellaneous Jury Issues
Supreme Court
• 28 USC § 636(b)(3) - MagistratesGonzalez v. U.S., 06-11612 (5/12/08)
> Defendant was charged with drug offenses and at the onset of the trial, defendant’s counsel consented that the jury selection may be conducted by a magistrate. Defendant was not consulted, but he did not object to the process. Defendant was convicted, and he argued on appeal that the court erred in permitting a magistrate to preside over voir dire without obtaining his personal consent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
* Holding: Pursuant to § 636(b)(3), magistrates may be assigned to duties that are “not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The Court held that magistrates may be assigned to preside over jury selection, and that consent of counsel for a defendant was sufficient to permit the delegation. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
Sixth Circuit
• Indictment Provided to JuryU.S. v. Smith, 04-1476 (8/18/05)
> At defendant’s trial for a drug conspiracy, the district judge read the indictment to the jury, and provided the jury with a copy to take to the jury room. The judge gave no limiting instruction with the indictment. Defendant failed to object, but raised the issue on appeal.
* Holding: The court held that it constitutes error for a district court to provide an indictment to a jury without instructing the jury that the indictment is not evidence of the guilt of the accused. Because defendant failed to object, however, the court applied plain error analysis and found that defendant’s substantial rights had not been affected by the jury’s view of the indictment. Thus, the court found no plain error and affirmed the conviction.
• Reading Indictment to Jury
U.S. v. Lawson, 04-4480 (8/1/08)
> Defendant was a member of a violent motorcycle gang who was charged with drug trafficking and RICO violations. During voir dire, the district court read the indictment to the prospective jurors. Defendant was convicted and appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the district court has the discretion to submit the indictment to the jury as long as a limiting instruction is provided that the indictment is not evidence of the defendant’s guilt. In the case, the court found that the district court provided a proper limiting instruction to the jury. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.
• Court Comments on Evidence
U.S. v. Frederick, 03-1895 (5/5/05)
> Defendant was charged with drug and weapon offenses, and during the instructions to the jury, the district court commented several times that testimony had proven certain facts pertinent to the elements of the offenses with which defendant was charged. Defendant objected to the court’s statements, and the court issued a curative instruction. Defendant challenged the court’s comments on appeal.
* Holding: The court found error in the district court’s comments, holding that the district court had suggested that certain factors were uncontested when, in fact, defendant had disputed them. Nonetheless, the court concluded that reversal was not required because the district court had provided an adequate curative instruction upon defendant’s request, and the case was not a close one for conviction.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3593(b) - Death Penalty Jury
U.S. v. Young, 05-5846 (9/29/05)
> Defendant was charged with capital murder and, before trial, the district court decided, pursuant to § 3593(b), to empanel separate juries to hear the guilt and penalty phases of trial. The government filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order.
* Holding: The court held that a district court may not decide, pretrial, to empanel separate guilt and penalty phase juries in a death penalty case under § 3593(b). The only time that a district court may decide to empanel a separate penalty phase jury under such section is after the guilty verdict has been rendered, and based upon a showing of “good cause.” Further, the court held that the unitary jury requirement cannot be waived by a defendant. Accordingly, the district court order was vacated.
• Racial Composition of Venire
U.S. v. Odeneal, 06-5885 (2/22/08)
> Defendant was charged in a drug conspiracy and at trial he challenged the racial composition of the venire. The district court found that the venire constituted a fair cross- section of the community, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
* Holding: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant must establish the following: (1) the excluded group is “distinctive;” (2) representation of such group is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) the underrepresentation is due to “systematic exclusion.” In the case, the court first held that African-Americans are a distinctive group. Second, the court found that defendant proved that the county contained 18.9% blacks, but failed to show the racial make-up of the other ten counties of the district, which was much lower. Third, the court ruled that the system in the district – using voter registration to form the jury pool – was mandated by statute and did not result in “systematic exclusion” of blacks. Thus, the court found no Sixth Amendment violation in the formation of the venire.
• Jury Review of Evidence
U.S. v. Rose, 06-1642 (4/8/08)
> Defendant was charged with firearms offenses and at trial the government introduced undercover recordings of defendant in regard to the purchase of firearms. The recordings were preserved on a lap top computer, and the district court admitted them in that format. During deliberations, the jury was only able to review the recordings with the assistance of the court, so the recordings were transferred from the laptop to CDs. Defense counsel was able to review the CDs before they were submitted to the jury for their continued deliberations. Defendant was convicted and argued on appeal that the submission of the CDs to the jury was improper.
* Holding: The court held that the change in formatting for the recordings during deliberations did not constitute plain error. The content of the recordings had already been admitted by the district court, and the content was not changed when the recordings were transferred from the laptop to the CDs. Even if it was error for the district court to permit the jury to have the CDs, the court found that the error was harmless. The CDs qualified as “duplicates” under FRE 1001(4), and thus would have been admissible since defendant raised no issue regarding the authenticity of the original recordings. Therefore, the substitution of the CDs did not constitute reversible error.
• Anonymous Jury
U.S. v. Lawson, 04-4480 (8/1/08)
> Defendant was a member of a violent motorcycle gang who was charged with drug trafficking and RICO violations. The court empaneled an anonymous jury for the trial. Defendant was convicted and he appealed.
* Holding: A court should not empanel an anonymous jury unless there is a strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and the court takes reasonable steps to minimize the prejudicial effect on the defendant and to ensure that the defendant’s fundamental rights are protected. The court identified three situations that may warrant an anonymous jury: (1) very dangerous defendants who are involved in large-scale organized crime, mob-style killings, and attempted jury tampering; (2) defendants with serious criminal records and histories of jury tampering; and (3) allegations of dangerous and unscrupulous conduct by defendants coupled with extensive pretrial publicity. In the case, the court held that both the first and third situations were present in defendant’s case, and thus there was a need for an anonymous jury. Further, the court found that the district court took proper precautions to protect defendant’s rights by allowing defendant to have certain information about each juror, permitting three days for voir dire, and avoiding implying to the jury that anonymity was required. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Inconsistent Jury Verdicts
U.S. v. Lawrence, 06-4105 (2/11/09)
> Defendant was convicted of multiple bank robbery and gun charges. Two of the charges were death eligible because defendant killed a police officer during one of the bank robberies. During the penalty phase, the jury imposed life imprisonment for the death-eligible bank robbery, but imposed the death penalty for the corresponding firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)(1). Defendant subsequently moved for a new trial alleging that the verdicts were inconsistent on the two counts. The district court granted the motion and ordered a new sentencing before a new jury. The government filed an interlocutory appeal.
* Holding: Ordinarily, inconsistent verdicts in a criminal case are not reviewable. The court held, however, that inconsistent verdicts may be reviewed if they are shown to be arbitrary or irrational in that the jury either did not follow the court’s instructions or did not speak its real conclusions. In the case, the court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent because the jury clearly did follow the district court’s instructions and its verdicts on both counts were unanimous. Accordingly, the district court ruling granting a new sentencing was vacated.