Kenneth Marshall v. City of Chicago
762 F.3d 573
7th Cir.2014Background
- Police executed a search warrant at a Chicago residence and found a shotgun in a bedroom; Kenneth Marshall (a convicted felon) had identified that bedroom as his and was arrested for constructive possession of a firearm.
- Marshall sued the City and arresting officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the arrest lacked probable cause; the case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict for defendants.
- At voir dire, Marshall moved to excuse a prospective juror for cause because she expressed a prior belief about parole conditions and firearms (derived from her son’s parole), which Marshall argued would bias her against him.
- The district court denied the for-cause challenge after the juror repeatedly affirmed she could be fair and set aside her personal experience; Marshall appealed that denial.
- Separately, the parties had agreed to an 8-person jury drawn from a 20-person venire. After nonblack jurors filled the eight slots, Marshall moved to expand the petit jury to 10 to increase the chance of seating a black juror; the court denied that request and Marshall appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it held the for-cause denial was not an abuse of discretion (juror’s belief was immaterial and she gave unequivocal assurances of impartiality) and the denial of the race-conscious expansion request was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause based on her prior belief about parole/firearm rules | Juror’s prior belief about parole-related firearm prohibitions made her unable to be impartial on issues of a convicted felon’s possession of a gun | Juror’s belief was immaterial to the legal question (constructive possession) and she unequivocally affirmed she could be fair | No abuse of discretion: belief was immaterial and juror gave an unwavering assurance of impartiality, so denial proper |
| Whether the court erred by denying Marshall’s request to expand the agreed 8-person jury to 10 to increase likelihood of seating a black juror | Court should expand the petit jury to increase chance of racial representation on the petit jury | No legal entitlement to a petit jury containing members of a particular race; grant would be race-conscious and constitutionally problematic | Denial proper: no right to a jury of a particular racial makeup; granting such a race-conscious request could itself violate Batson principles |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (voir dire aims to secure impartial jury)
- Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 248 F.3d 621 (two-step test for prior beliefs: materiality/contestability then ability to set aside)
- United States v. Brodnicki, 516 F.3d 570 (trial judge’s discretion in juror for-cause rulings)
- United States v. Allen, 605 F.3d 461 (juror’s unequivocal assurances can defeat for-cause challenge)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on purposeful racial discrimination in juror selection)
- Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (no right to a petit jury composed of a particular race)
- Munoz-Pacheco v. Holder, 673 F.3d 741 (failure to exercise discretion is a legal error)