United States v. Christopher Seifer, 800 F.3d 328

Defendant Christopher Seifer, a Bureau of Prisons employee, was convicted of four counts of mail fraud and one count of theft of government property for submitting over 1,300 false travel-reimbursement claims and receiving over $80,000.
At trial the district court empaneled 13 jurors and, contrary to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c), designated the alternate by random draw after evidence closed rather than selecting an alternate separately before trial; the government concedes the procedure violated Rule 24(c).
Seifer did not object at trial; the alternate was chosen by Seifer drawing a name from a box and that juror was excused before deliberations. The remaining 12 jurors convicted Seifer on all counts.
Seifer appealed, asserting the Rule 24(c) violation required a new trial because the post-evidence selection of the alternate may have produced an inattentive juror (i.e., prejudice).
The Seventh Circuit applied plain-error review (defendant bears burden to show prejudice) and held Seifer’s prejudice argument speculative and insufficient to show that his substantial rights were affected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's (Government's) Argument	Held
Whether post-evidence random selection of an alternate violated Rule 24(c) and warrants a new trial	Rule 24(c) violation requires reversal because the alternate was chosen after evidence and may have been inattentive	Error occurred but any prejudice is speculative; defendant must prove substantial rights were affected under plain-error review	Court: Procedure violated Rule 24(c) but defendant failed to show prejudice; no new trial granted
Who bears burden on appeal when no contemporaneous objection was made	Seifer argued government must show no effect on substantial rights	Government and precedent: defendant must prove prejudice under plain-error standard	Court: Defendant bears burden to show prejudice under plain-error review
Whether particular factual challenges (paper size, state lottery law) establish prejudice	Paper-size or lottery-procedure defects could have biased the alternate selection and warrant retrial	These arguments are speculative, record lacks those items, and state lottery law is inapplicable	Court: Arguments meritless and insufficient to show impartial jury

United States v. Mendoza, 510 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 24 requires alternates be selected before evidence; post-evidence selection improper)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice under plain-error review)
United States v. Foster, 652 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2011) (interpreting Rule 24 selection timing requirement)
United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 1998) (alternates step in in selection order; proper selection procedures matter)
United States v. Delgado, 350 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2003) (speculation about jurors’ thought processes insufficient to show prejudice)
United States v. Merrill, 513 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2008) (Rule 24 selection timing requirement explained)