United States v. Jesse Penn, Jr.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16617
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jesse Nathaniel Penn, Jr. was retried on a § 922(g)(1) charge after his first conviction was vacated on appeal; he was convicted at retrial and appealed.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror (a university student) disclosed a scheduled tonsillectomy for the day after jury selection and concerns about missing classes and basketball practice.
- The student was seated, sworn, and preliminary instructions were given; after opening statements, the court received a doctor’s note and contacted the physician’s office confirming the appointment.
- The district judge met with the juror, concluded the juror appeared reluctant and that medical evidence supported his need for surgery, and—over defense objection and with prosecution consent—excused the juror and seated an alternate.
- Penn argued on appeal that the substitution violated Rule 24(c)(1) and deprived him of constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, a fair trial, and an impartial jury), partly asserting racial-impact concerns because the excused juror was African-American.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the district court’s removal for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the court acted within its discretion under Rule 24(c)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether replacing a seated juror with an alternate without explicit on-the-record "findings" violated Rule 24(c)(1) | Penn: Court failed to make required findings that juror was "unable to perform" or "disqualified," so removal was improper | Government: Rule 24(c)(1) allows removal where court reasonably determines juror cannot perform; detailed formal findings not required | Held: No abuse of discretion; record contains sufficient factual basis and articulated reasons for excusal |
| Whether excusal violated defendant's equal protection/Batson-type rights by altering racial composition of jury | Penn: Removal of an African-American juror after selection in case with African-American defendant implicated equal protection and peremptory-challenge interests | Government: No showing of discriminatory purpose; removal was based on medical/scheduling concerns, not race | Held: No Batson or equal protection violation; defendant has no right to preserve specific juror(s) or exact racial composition |
| Whether removal deprived defendant of due process/fair trial/impartial jury | Penn: Juror substitution prejudiced fairness and impartiality of jury | Government: Trial court’s discretion to remove distracted/reluctant juror preserves fairness; substitution permitted | Held: Claims undeveloped and meritless; substitution did not violate due process or fairness |
| Whether Rule 24(c)(1) requires impossibility of service (i.e., juror must be absolutely unable to serve) | Penn: "Unable to perform" means juror must be effectively incapable of serving; reschedulable surgery shows juror could serve | Government: Rule allows replacement based on impact of conflict on particular juror, not only absolute inability | Held: Rule not interpreted so narrowly; courts may remove jurors for conflicts or distractions that impair performance; district court properly exercised discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gov’t of V.I. v. Davis, 561 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.) (standard of review for constitutional claims)
- United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333 (3d Cir. 1972) (trial judge may remove juror when judge believes juror’s ability to perform is impaired)
- United States v. Bradley, 173 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 1999) (record can show sufficient support for juror dismissal under Rule 24)
- United States v. Reese, 33 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 1994) (trial judge discretion on extent of juror questioning when excusal is sought)
- United States v. De Oleo, 697 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding replacement of student-juror concerned about missing school; impact on juror matters more than objective seriousness)
- Mendoza v. United States, 510 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2007) (defendant has no right to any particular juror or to maintain jury’s exact racial composition)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (framework for proving purposeful racial discrimination in juror exclusion)