United States v. Darin McAllister
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18705
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- McAllister, a former FBI agent, was convicted on fifteen counts of wire fraud and three counts of bankruptcy fraud for false loan documents and bankruptcy disclosures.
- Two African-American prospective jurors, Ewing and Pillow, were peremptorily struck; McAllister challenged the Batson claim.
- District court conducted a limited Batson inquiry and accepted the government’s race-neutral explanations with minimal on-record analysis.
- A SunTrust loan officer, Wes English, testified the defense sought to call him but he invoked the Fifth Amendment; the court allowed blanket privilege.
- McAllister contested various trial conduct issues including alleged judicial/prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel; bank fraud charge later dismissed.
- The district court’s adjudication led to a partial affirmation and remand to address explicit Batson findings; overall conviction stayed in part with remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Batson properly analyzed? | District court failed to conduct full three-step Batson inquiry. | Government’s race-neutral reasons sufficed; court’s refusal to fully analyze was harmless. | Remand for explicit on-record Batson findings; district court failed to complete three-step analysis. |
| Admission of English after blanket Fifth Amendment assertion | Court should have allowed English to testify despite blanket Fifth Amendment claim. | Court acted within discretion; blanket claim appropriate given potential incrimination. | District court did not abuse discretion; blanket invocation permissible under circumstances. |
| Judicial misconduct and trial fairness | Alleged district court conduct deprived McAllister of fair trial. | No reversible misconduct shown; actions within discretion. | No plain error; no demonstrated abuse affecting substantial rights; remand not warranted for this issue. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor’s statements and tactics undermined fairness. | Any improprieties were not flagrant or prejudicial. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; conduct not flagrant; due process not violated. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Counsel failed to object and failed to request offer of proof for English. | IAC claims are better raised in collateral proceedings; record insufficient. | Not decided on direct appeal; declined to hear IAC claims; remand not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (discriminatory intent standard in Batson analysis)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (Miller-El II—on-step analysis and pretext evaluation)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (three-step Batson framework and credibility)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (race-neutral explanations suffice absent inherent discrimination)
- Cecil, 615 F.3d 678 (2010) (emphasizes explicit, on-the-record Batson analysis)
- Torres-Ramos, 536 F.3d 542 (2008) (evidence considered easily accessible for Batson analysis)
- Kimbrel, 532 F.3d 461 (2008) (structural Batson error concept and deference to district court)
- Jackson, 347 F.3d 598 (2003) (plain-error review applicable when Batson issue not objected at trial)
- Braxton v. Gansheimer, 561 F.3d 453 (2009) (posture of Batson review and district court’s role)
- United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654 (2003) (Batson error carries substantial rights impact; broader due process concerns)