Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to overrule a district court judge’s decision to not disqualify a juror in a heroin and methamphetamine case involving three men. But the appellate court did vacate the sentence handed down for one of the men.
During their trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Derrick Granger, Clifford King and Eric Walker requested that the judge disqualify a juror who said, as a retired police officer, he would be more inclined to believe an officer than he would a civilian witness.
The juror was subject to voir dire examination because all three defendants had exhausted their peremptory challenges.
The judge denied the motion, and the three men were convicted of conspiring to distribute heroin and methamphetamine, as well as firearm offenses.
Granger and King were sentenced to 30 years, and Walker was sentenced to 27 1/2 years.
The defendants raised seven issues on appeal, though the 7th Circuit ruled only two warranted discussion.
Their main argument was the district court judge should have struck the juror for cause.
But the 7th Circuit disagreed in separate but identical opinions for each defendant.
The opinions include a transcript of a back-and-forth between Juror 70 and the judge. It started when the judge asked the group of potential jurors if they thought a law enforcement officer’s testimony should receive extra weight. Juror 70 raised his hand, and the judge asked what “extra weight” meant to him.
“Well, being a retired police officer with 30 years of service, the vast majority of police officers in my experience take their oath very, very seriously; and I can’t think of too many times or any times actually in my entire career where I have seen or heard of evidence being presented by a police officer that wasn’t the straight-up truth,” the juror said.
Asked if he could keep an “open mind” and “judge each witness by their testimony,” the juror said he could.
Defense counsel asked the juror if he would give greater weight to testimony by police officers.
“I would like to believe I’m fair and take everything at face value; but I mean, it’s what I’ve done for over 30 years, and I’m still involved in an ancillary role as a rider,” the juror said. “So I would say that police officers—I look at them as coming in vetted already.”
In disagreeing with the defendants’ arguments, the 7th Circuit ruled the district judge can do things like “hear the prospective juror’s tone of voice” to help make a reliable assessment of honesty.
“A transcript lacks that information,” the opinions say, also noting the district judge can read a prospective juror’s facial expressions and body language.
The defendants also argued a prospective juror’s assurances must be the last thing they say. For the juror in question, his last words had to do with giving more weight to a police officer’s testimony as opposed to a witness he knew “nothing about.”
According to the 7th Circuit, the case Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 248 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2001) “could be read to imply a last-in-time requirement for evaluating the statements of a prospective juror.” But Thompson didn’t announce or even consider such a rule, the opinion says.
The 7th Circuit also said other cases consider everything the prospective juror said, without suggesting that only the final statement matters.
“The norm in this circuit has been, and remains, that a district judge may take into account everything a potential juror says when deciding whether that person can be impartial,” the opinion says.
The 7th Circuit also noted it was “undoubtedly a closely balanced situation” and that other judges may have granted the request to remove the juror.
But the 7th Circuit did vacate Walker’s sentence, ruling the district court judge didn’t totally satisfy all three elements of the relevant-conduct sentencing guideline to establish Walker was accountable for all drugs that the conspiracy as a whole distributed during his time as a participant.
The judge established the first two findings, the 7th Circuit ruled, but not the third, which addresses what conduct was “reasonably foreseeable” to Walker.
The omission required a remand for resentencing, the opinion says.
The convictions, along with the sentences for Granger and King, were affirmed.
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote the opinions.
The cases are United State of America v. Derrick Granger, Clifford R. King Jr., and Eric Walker, 21-2874, 21-3056 & 21-3382.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.