United States v. Edward Marron, 658 F. App'x 692

Defendant Edward Eliseo Marron was convicted by a jury of conspiracy and two counts of possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
During voir dire a prospective juror (dismissed for cause) said she worked in the courthouse criminal department and that Marron “looked familiar” and “might have visited” the courthouse at some point.
Marron moved for a mistrial and challenged the impartiality of the jury, arguing the juror’s remark tainted the panel and required further inquiry or a mistrial.
The district court dismissed the prospective juror for cause and declined further questioning of the remaining panel or to grant a mistrial.
Marron also petitioned that the prosecutor’s rebuttal reference to an aphorism about the “devil” improperly injected religion and attacked defense counsel during closing argument; he did not object at trial, so review is for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juror remark during voir dire tainted the jury pool	Marron: juror’s comment that he looked familiar from courthouse visits prejudiced the jury and required further inquiry or mistrial	Government: prospective juror was dismissed; remark was attenuated and did not influence empaneled jurors	Court: no violation of impartial-jury right; district court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial or further questioning
Whether district court abused discretion in handling juror impartiality inquiry	Marron: court should have investigated contamination of jury panel	Government: district court in best position; no further questioning necessary	Court: district court reasonably determined no potential prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether prosecutor’s closing remark injected religion or attacked defense counsel	Marron: prosecutor’s “devil” remark was religious and impermissible attack	Government: remark was rhetorical to rebut defense, not a religious invocation or personal attack	Court: not plain error; remark was rhetorical, isolated, mitigated by instructions, and not outcome-determinative
Whether alleged juror error is structural error	Marron: if jury impartiality violated, error is structural	Government: no impartiality violation occurred	Court: because no impartial-jury violation shown, no need to treat it as structural error

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (standard for preserved vs. forfeited appellate review)
United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion review of voir dire and juror impartiality)
United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1978) (scope and method of voir dire review)
United States v. Gerald, 624 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1980) (addressing jury misconduct procedures)
United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1992) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial)
United States v. Delval, 600 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1979) (attenuated juror contact not presumptively prejudicial)
United States v. Ruggiero, 56 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 1995) (presumption of juror impartiality)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (standard for assessing juror impartiality and influence)
United States v. Warren, 594 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1979) (effect of juror statements on empaneled jurors)
United States v. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2001) (trial court’s gatekeeping role in juror inquiries)
United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for unobjected-to prosecutorial remarks)
United States v. Thompson, 482 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard and effect on substantial rights)
United States v. Strmel, 744 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1984) (prosecutor may rebut defense attack on investigation; rhetorical devices permissible)

AFFIRMED.