United States v. Lemurel Williams
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7562
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police stopped Lemurel Williams walking in the road at 1:30 a.m.; he fled, was caught, and a gun and cell phone were found near fences he had jumped. Williams was tried under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- During voir dire the government used peremptory strikes on two African‑American veniremembers; the government later (11 days after trial, in writing and privately) provided race‑neutral explanations, which the district court accepted and denied Williams’s Batson challenge.
- After about three hours of deliberation the jury returned a guilty verdict; on polling Juror 1 said “no,” but the judge apparently did not hear and continued polling the rest, who said “yes.” The jury was dismissed, then polled again after a sidebar; Juror 1 again said she had misunderstood and affirmed the verdict.
- The judge instructed the jury to return to the jury room and renew deliberations to reach unanimity—without consulting counsel—and ten minutes later the jury sent a note saying they had misunderstood and that they had a verdict; the verdict was then accepted and the jury dismissed.
- Williams moved for mistrial on grounds of juror coercion; the district court denied the motion. On appeal the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the polling, instruction, and subsequent events was impermissibly coercive and warranted a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government’s peremptory strikes violated Batson | Williams: strikes were racially motivated and process used (delayed, written, secret) was inadequate | Government: provided race‑neutral reasons; Batson challenge untimely after jury sworn/venire dismissed | Court declined to decide merits; criticized district court procedures for Batson but granted relief on other grounds |
| Whether the manner of providing race‑neutral explanations (written, delayed, secret) was proper | Williams: explanations were not timely or oral, prevented demeanor assessment and were secret | Government: proffered explanations satisfied Batson framework | Court: procedures were flawed and secret explanations are strongly discouraged, but did not resolve Batson claim |
| Whether continuing to poll the jury after one juror dissented was coercive | Williams: continued polling publicly revealed lone dissenter, pressuring her to conform | Government: polling is permitted and defendant requested poll; no evidence of coercion beyond polling | Court: continued full polling after a juror dissented was plainly coercive here because it revealed the lone dissenter and served no purpose |
| Whether judge’s supplemental instruction and post‑poll handling coerced jurors | Williams: instruction and immediate handling (no counsel consult, brief recess, quick note) pressured jurors to unanimity | Government: instruction was permissible and not coercive; any objection was untimely | Court: instruction, timing, and the judge’s public questioning of the juror, combined with polling and the quick verdict, created impermissible coercion—new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits peremptory strikes based on race)
- Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (totality‑of‑circumstances test for coercive instructions combined with polling)
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (revealing numerical division of jury is reversible error)
- Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (instruction telling jurors they must reach a decision is coercive)
- United States v. Silvern, 484 F.2d 879 (7th Cir.) (pattern supplemental instruction minimizes coercion; instructs jurors not to surrender honest beliefs)
- United States v. Carraway, 108 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 1997) (continued polling can be acceptable if it does not reveal numerical division or coerce lone dissenter)
- United States v. Tucker, 836 F.2d 334 (7th Cir.) (secret Batson proceedings are exceptional and discouraged)
- Thaler v. Hayes, 559 U.S. 43 (demeanor often key to assessing validity of race‑neutral strike explanations)
- United States v. Blitch, 622 F.3d 658 (7th Cir.) (focus on juror perspective; coercion occurs when jurors surrender honest opinions)