889 F.3d 350
7th Cir.2018Background
- On Jan. 9, 2015, a masked robber at Belmont Bank & Trust took about $3,000; the teller had included a GPS tracker in the cash.
- Police located and chased a person matching the description; they captured Alvin Edgeworth on an underground train platform and recovered the stolen money, the GPS device, the construction outfit, and a loaded revolver.
- Edgeworth was arrested, taken to an FBI facility, and gave a videotaped post-arrest statement.
- Pretrial, Edgeworth moved to suppress his statements alleging physical assault, coercion, and threats of longer imprisonment and requested an evidentiary hearing; the district court denied the motion for lack of specific factual allegations.
- During trial a juror disclosed she needed to return to college the next day; the judge did not probe further, the parties (including defense) agreed she should remain, and the juror stayed and completed service.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level Guidelines enhancement for taking property of a financial institution; Edgeworth objected to preserve the record. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of suppression motion and denial of evidentiary hearing | Edgeworth: suppression and hearing required because officers assaulted and coerced him and threatened longer prison if he didn't cooperate | District court: allegations were vague/conclusory and failed to make a prima facie showing of illegality | Affirmed — no hearing required; allegations lacked the definite, specific, nonconjectural facts needed to justify a hearing (court reviews facts for clear error and hearing denial for abuse of discretion) |
| Adequacy of voir dire probing juror's school commitment | Edgeworth: judge should have followed up when juror said she had to return to college so defense could use challenges intelligently | Court/government: voir dire scope is within judge's broad discretion; no follow-up warranted given judge's view that student status alone doesn't establish hardship | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion or plain error in not probing further |
| Failure to excuse juror mid-trial after note of unavailability | Edgeworth: juror should have been excused once she said she could not attend the next day | Government: Edgeworth waived the claim by affirmatively agreeing the juror should remain | Affirmed — claim waived because defense expressly approved that the juror remain |
| Two-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(1) | Edgeworth: enhancement double-counts same conduct underlying robbery conviction | Government: Seventh Circuit precedent allows such double counting absent express prohibition in Guidelines | Affirmed — court declines to revisit precedent (double counting permissible under current Seventh Circuit law) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tepiew, 859 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2017) (standards for review of suppression rulings)
- United States v. Curlin, 638 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary hearing required only when defendant makes prima facie showing of illegality)
- United States v. Randle, 966 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1992) (defendant must make a prima facie showing to obtain suppression hearing)
- United States v. Hamm, 786 F.2d 804 (7th Cir. 1986) (defendant must present definite, specific, detailed, nonconjectural facts for relief)
- United States v. Broadnax, 536 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2008) (voir dire and plain-error review principles)
- United States v. Smith, 818 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirmative approval can waive appellate challenge to jury matters)
- United States v. Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2012) (double-counting guideline enhancement generally permissible)