Criminal Procedure – Right to jury

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure – Right to jury

The defendant failed to adequately argue why African-American men are a distinctive group for purposes of jury selection.

“Beavers did not develop an argument in his opening brief as to why African-American men constitute a distinctive group in the community. Women are a distinctive group, see, e.g., Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, as are African Americans, see, e.g., Neighbors, 590 F.3d at 491. But the parties have cited no cases, and we have found none, addressing whether African-American men constitute a distinctive group under Duren. We have clearly set out the standards by which we decide 26 No. 13-3198
whether a group is ‘distinctive’ for Duren cross-section claims, see United States v. Raszkiewicz, 169 F.3d 459, 463 (7th Cir. 1999), but Beavers did not conduct that analysis or even cite that case until his reply brief.”

“Beavers waived this issue because he did not address this question of first impression in detail in his opening brief. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (‘Perfunctory, undeveloped arguments without discussion or citation to pertinent legal authority are waived.’). His approach prevented the opposing party from having the opportunity in its brief to respond and fully air the arguments on the other side. We express no view on the merits of Beavers’ waived argument.”

Affirmed.

13-3198 U.S. v. Beavers

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text