64 F.4th 589
4th Cir.2023Background:
- Defendants Jose Cruz Colon and Natassja Lopez‑Alvarado were indicted for drug‑trafficking and money‑laundering conspiracies; trial set for September 2021 during the Delta COVID‑19 surge.
- The district court required parties to disclose vaccination status and sent a juror questionnaire (110 venire members) that included COVID‑19 vaccination and risk questions.
- The defendants were unvaccinated, objected to striking unvaccinated jurors for cause, and reserved objections; the government took no position.
- At a pretrial conference the court struck all prospective jurors who reported they were unvaccinated (and one additional unvaccinated juror during voir dire) citing COVID‑19 safety risks; some unvaccinated jurors also had independent disqualifying reasons.
- The jury convicted both defendants; they appealed, arguing the for‑cause strikes of unvaccinated jurors violated the Sixth Amendment fair‑cross‑section requirement.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellants) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking unvaccinated prospective jurors for cause violated the Sixth Amendment fair‑cross‑section requirement | Striking all unvaccinated jurors excluded a distinctive segment of the community and therefore violated Duren/Taylor fair‑cross‑section protections | The fair‑cross‑section requirement applies to venires, not petit juries; the strikes were for cause based on jurors' ability to serve safely in this case | Court held fair‑cross‑section does not apply to for‑cause strikes after venire assembled; affirmed the district court |
| Whether evidence supported conviction that five kilograms of cocaine was reasonably foreseeable to Lopez‑Alvarado | (Lopez‑Alvarado) Insufficient evidence that 5 kg was reasonably foreseeable as a natural consequence of the conspiracy | Government pointed to co‑conspirator testimony, observed transactions, and package activity tying Lopez‑Alvarado to large‑scale distribution | Court found the evidence sufficient and affirmed the conviction |
Key Cases Cited:
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986) (fair‑cross‑section principle not extended to invalidate for‑cause or peremptory challenges; groups excluded for case‑specific inability to serve may be struck)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) (fair‑cross‑section requires venires, not that petit juries mirror community composition)
- Duren v. Mississippi, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (prima facie test for fair‑cross‑section claim)
- Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) (rejected extension of fair‑cross‑section requirement from venire to petit jury)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibition on discriminatory peremptory strikes; available framework to challenge discriminatory juror exclusions)
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (2016) (recognizes courts’ inherent authority to manage proceedings to ensure orderly administration of justice)
- United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431 (4th Cir. 1988) (approving use of voter registration lists for jury wheels)
- United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 899 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of constitutional questions)