United States v. Lindsey
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 704
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lindsey was convicted of conspiracy, armed bank robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, following a three-day jury trial.
- DNA from a nylon cap found in the getaway vehicle matched Lindsey, linking him to the robbery.
- A gray Toyota/white SUV were used as getaway vehicles; a Lexus purchased with proceeds was found at Lindsey's sister's home.
- The government introduced Gibson's testimony detailing Lindsey's involvement and other witnesses corroborating the plan and execution.
- Before voir dire, the district court miscounted peremptory challenges, giving Lindsey nine of ten; defense opted for a use-or-lose approach to challenges.
- Lindsey did not object when the court announced the defense had no further peremptories and the jury was seated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedy for erroneous peremptory-denial | Annigoni automatic reversal should apply. | Rivera overruled Annigoni; harmless/plain-error review governs. | Rivera controls; no automatic reversal; plain-error review applies |
| Appropriate standard of review for the peremptory-denial error | Automatic reversal is required under prior circuit law. | Harmless-error/plain-error review appropriate post-Rivera. | Plain-error review applied; no reversible error found |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction | Gibson's testimony and DNA evidence together prove conspiracy and robbery. | Gibson's reliability and lack of physical evidence undermine guilt. | Evidence viewed in the government's favor supports a reasonable juror's conviction |
| Harmlessness of alleged evidentiary and instructional errors | Admission of Arbuthnot's testimony and jury instructions impacted outcomes. | Errors were prejudicial or reversible; some are harmless. | Harmless error or non-reversible under plain-error review; no reversal ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1996) (automatic reversal for denial/impaired peremptory challenge upheld prior to Rivera)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 129 S. Ct. 1446 (2009) (good-faith denial of peremptory challenge not per se reversible; permits harmless-error review)
- Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (Supreme Court 1965) (denial/impaired peremptory challenge historically reversible without prejudice)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court 1988) (peremptory challenges cannot cure for-cause error warranting reversal)
- Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court 2000) (disavows Swain; supports harmless-error approach to certain peremptory cases)
- Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court 1991) (structural vs. trial-error framework guidance for reversibility)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc; controlling authority on applying intervening higher authority)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (Jackson v. Virginia standard; sufficiency review framework)
- United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1992) (harmless-error framework for omitted elements)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error standard elements and relief criteria)
- United States v. Ellis, 147 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1998) (grave doubt standard for harmless-error review)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (peremptory challenges; limitations post-Batson)
- U.S. v. O'Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010) (brandishing and related enhancements as sentencing factors)