08-3511, 08-3549, 08-3885 & 08-4144 U.S. v. Blitch

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Jury bias

Where the district court failed to inquire into whether the jury was biased, a new trial is required.

“We are mindful of the discretion district judges have when determining whether a jury is biased and of the deference we pay to a district judge’s determination that a jury can remain impartial. As the Supreme Court said recently, ‘Reviewing courts are properly resistant to second-guessing the trial judge’s estimation of a juror’s impartiality, for that judge’s appraisal is ordinarily influenced by a host of factors impossible to capture fully in the record-among them, the prospective juror’s inflection, sincerity, demeanor, candor, body language, and apprehension of duty.’ Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2918. Here, however, those same considerations are not in play, as the judge did not individually question the jurors at issue. We also understand the concern that a defendant could affirmatively make jurors fearful and then try to benefit from a more focused inquiry, but there is no suggestion in this case that it was the defendants’ conduct that made the jurors uncomfortable. Cf. United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800, 805 (6th Cir. 2005). And we do not say that individualized voir dire is necessarily required every time a jury expresses concern that defendants have access to information about them. Under the circumstances of this particular case, however, we find the inquiry inadequate. This is not to suggest that the judge should have cancelled her commitment to sit by designation, a practice we fully support. Here, though, we cannot discern any basis from the record why this short trial could not have been rescheduled to another date. No speedy trial concerns were raised, it was the defendants who requested a new panel of jurors, and they expressed no scheduling conflicts. In fact, we do not see any indication in the record that the court or counsel were unavailable soon after the judge returned from sitting by designation.”

Vacated.

08-3511, 08-3549, 08-3885 & 08-4144 U.S. v. Blitch

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Williams, J.

Full Text