United States v. Kenneth Morgan, Jr.
709 F. App'x 444
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Morgan, Jr. was convicted by a jury of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and appealed his conviction and sentence.
- During jury selection the government used a peremptory strike on an Asian-American prospective juror; Morgan argued the strike was racially motivated under Batson principles.
- Morgan requested a self-defense jury instruction; the district court denied the request for lack of supporting evidence.
- At closing and rebuttal the prosecutor characterized Morgan's conduct as "slashing at the victim;" Morgan objected to this characterization.
- Sentencing included a Guidelines enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon based on conduct underlying an acquitted count, and several supervised-release conditions (family responsibilities, regular work, probation officer visits, confiscation of contraband).
- Morgan also challenged the application of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 as singling him out for his "Indian blood," raising a Fifth Amendment due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremptory strike of Asian-American juror | Gov't: strike was race-neutral because juror had served on a hung jury and expressed concerns about fairness | Morgan: strike was intentionally discriminatory | Court: affirmed—district court did not clearly err; hung-jury service and fairness concerns are race-neutral reasons (deference to factfinder) |
| Self-defense instruction | Gov't: no evidence supports self-defense instruction | Morgan: requested instruction; asserted some evidence supported it | Court: denied—no record evidence to warrant instruction; mere scintilla insufficient |
| Prosecutor closing remarks ("slashing at the victim") | Gov't: statements were reasonable inferences from evidence; allowed wide latitude in closing | Morgan: argued remarks were improper/commentary beyond evidence | Court: overruled objection—remarks were permissible inferences; prosecutor may "strike hard blows" based on evidence |
| Sentencing enhancement for weapon based on acquitted conduct | Gov't: judge may consider acquitted conduct at sentencing | Morgan: Sixth Amendment violation—jury acquitted weapon charge | Court: affirmed—no Sixth Amendment violation when judge considers conduct underlying acquitted counts |
| Fifth Amendment / § 1153 challenge | Gov't: § 1153 valid; federal regulation of Indian affairs is political, not racial classification | Morgan: singling out based on "Indian blood" violates due process | Court: rejected challenge—Antelope/Zepeda uphold § 1153 as constitutionally permissible |
| Supervised-release conditions (vagueness/overbreadth) | Gov't: conditions reasonably related to sentencing goals and case facts | Morgan: conditions vague/overbroad (e.g., visit "at any time") | Court: affirmed—conditions appropriate and not plainly erroneous given controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Steele, 298 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court factfindings on discriminatory intent)
- United States v. Changco, 1 F.3d 837 (9th Cir.) (hung-jury service is a race-neutral ground for strike)
- Briggs v. Grounds, 682 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.) (juror hesitation about fairness can justify exclusion)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecutor’s reason for strike need not equal cause standard to be race-neutral)
- United States v. Sanchez-Lima, 161 F.3d 545 (9th Cir.) (right to instruction when supported by law and some evidence)
- United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir.) (mere scintilla insufficient for instruction)
- United States v. Gorostiza, 468 F.2d 915 (9th Cir.) (prosecutors have wide latitude in closing argument)
- United States v. Tucker, 641 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.) (prosecutor may rely on reasonable inferences in argument)
- United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (Sup. Ct.) (§ 1153 constitutionally permissible given Indians’ unique political status)
- United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. en banc) (upholding § 1153 against equal protection/due process challenge)
- United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654 (9th Cir.) (sentencing judges may consider acquitted conduct)
- United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.) (standard for supervised-release conditions reasonably related to sentencing goals)
- United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (no plain error where controlling precedent is lacking)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419 (9th Cir.) (discussing plain-error review when precedent is mixed)