Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Can a Defendant Waive the Right to an Impartial Jury?

The Seventh Circuit had three new opinions in criminal cases in the past week.  The court also withdrew, without explanation, its opinion in United States v. Dunson (No. 08-1691), which I blogged about last week.

In United States v. Brazelton (No. 07-2488), the defendant was convicted by a jury of various drug and gun offenses.  The jury included the second cousin of a man who had once been shot by the defendant.  Voir dire indicated no actual bias on the part of the juror — or even that the juror knew of the shooting — and no motion was made to strike him for cause.  On appeal, however, Brazelton argued that he was entitled to a new trial under the implied bias doctrine, which indicates that close relatives of people with actual bias must be automatically excluded.  The Seventh Circuit (per Judge Coffey) rejected this claim.  After noting uncertainty in the law as to whether second cousins are closely enough related to fall within the scope of the implied bias rule, the court instead decided the case on the basis of Brazelton’s failure to seek removal of the juror at trial.  The court concluded that Brazelton thereby waived any right he had to raise the implied bias claim later.  Along the way, the court noted a Sixth Circuit case indicating that defendants may not waive their right to an impartial jury, thus suggesting the existence of a circuit split on the question.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Can a Defendant Waive the Right to an Impartial Jury?

Applicants Named for Eastern and Western District Positions

As Dean Kearney observed in an earlier post, I am chairing the Federal Nominating Commission that is reviewing applications for the United States Attorney post in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Dean Ken Davis of Wisconsin is chairing a counterpart commission that is reviewing applications for a federal judgeship in the Western District.  Both sets of applications were due yesterday.  The list of U.S. Attorney applicants is here, and the list of judicial applicants is here.  Both groups include many individuals with impressive professional credentials.  I think the people of Wisconsin should be pleased that so many well-qualified applicants have indicated an interest in these important positions of public service.  If members of the public would like to comment on the qualifications of any of the applicants, they may send letters to Adam C. Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin, 5302 Eastpark Boulevard, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158.

Continue ReadingApplicants Named for Eastern and Western District Positions

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: More on the Elusive Meaning of “Crack”

With just two new opinions, there was not much criminal action in the Seventh Circuit last week.  One of the two, United States v. Dunson (No. 08-1691), was a very brief per curiam holding that the Indiana crime of fleeing a police officer in a vehicle is a “crime of violence” for purposes of applying § 2K2.1(a)(2) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The second, and much meatier, opinion was United States v. Bryant (No. 07-3608), in which the court (per Judge Ripple) affirmed the defendant’s conviction for drug trafficking, but nonetheless remanded for resentencing.  A central issue in the case was whether the defendant was dealing crack cocaine, as opposed to some other form of cocaine that would result in a lesser sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelnes.  Coincidentally, the court dealt with the same issue the previous week in United States v. Stephenson, which I blogged about here.  In both cases, the court underscored that “crack” is not defined by some particular chemical composition, but by the understanding of drug users and sellers — in a sense, “crack” is what the market calls “crack.” 

Bryant is interesting for the way that it shines a light on the fallibility of crime labs. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: More on the Elusive Meaning of “Crack”