Jesse Webster v. United States
2011 WL 6318327
7th Cir.2011Background
- Webster was convicted in 1995 on cocaine-trafficking and tax-fraud charges; a juror was absent for a day during deliberations.
- The district court found a juror’s absence but concluded Webster’s claim was procedurally defaulted or untimely.
- The district court later considered Webster’s fraud-on-the-court theory, finding insufficient proof of improper deliberations.
- An investigative process interviewed jurors (excluding the absent juror) and produced inconsistent recollections about the deliberations.
- On appeal, Webster argued twelve-person jury rights and ineffective assistance; the district court’s handling of the § 2255 petition was scrutinized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the twelve-person jury claim procedurally defaulted? | Webster preserved it in the § 2255 petition. | Claim was not raised on direct appeal or original § 2255 petition. | Not procedurally defaulted; merits analyzed. |
| Does Rule 23(b) require a twelve-member jury or permit 11 when deliberations occur without a juror? | Absent juror violated Rule 23(b), affecting verdict. | No actual 11-person deliberation occurred; Rule 23(b) not triggered. | Not implicated; no juror excused and no clear evidence of deliberate 11-person deliberations. |
| Are the juror-interview results admissible under Rule 606(b)? | Interviews show juror absence and could support relief. | Interviews are inadmissible under Rule 606(b) and unreliable due to time lapse. | Admissibility rejected; interviews excluded. |
| Did the district court err in relying on Araujo to treat eleven-person deliberations as structural error? | Araujo controls, requiring vacatur for eleven-deliberator situations. | Araujo does not apply to this factual posture where twelve jurors returned a verdict. | Affirmed judgment; Araujo misapplied but not detrimental to outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970) (jury size and unanimity considerations in non-strict twelve-member requirement)
- Araujo, 62 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 1995) (state/federal rule on jury size under Rule 23; structural error context)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (Rule 606(b) and admissibility of juror testimony; deliberations)
- Rosario, 234 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2000) (development of facts outside the record in § 2255 petitions)
- McGraw, 571 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2009) (clearly erroneous standard; fact-finding review)
- Shackelford, 777 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1985) (harms and limits of partial deliberations; harmless-error considerations)