United States v. Orlando Carter
483 F. App'x 70
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Carter was the majority owner of Dynus and was convicted on multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy, and false statements arising from his management of the company.
- He challenged a government peremptory strike of Juror 18 as race-based under Batson and sought to compel attendance of two African-American venire members under the JSSA.
- The venire originally had 72; 9 did not appear, including two African-Americans; 63 appeared, with 3 African-Americans.
- After voir dire and challenges, the final jury included one African-American (plus a first alternate who was African-American), with two African-Americans ultimately serving.
- The district court admitted photos of Carter’s home to show motive; testimony from corporate counsel Rowe was excluded under Rule 403; and the court rejected the Batson challenge and the JSSA contention, with the conviction affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to Juror 18 | Cite Government race-neutral reasons; juror 18 lacked sophistication and capabilities. | Batson disparately targeted an African-American juror; reasons are pretextual. | Batson challenge rejected; no discriminatory intent shown. |
| Failure to compel attendance of two absent African-American venire members | JSSA requires attendance where feasible to ensure cross-section representation. | No substantial failure; no systematic exclusion; no duty to compel no-shows. | No JSSA violation; district court proper. |
| Exclusion of Rowe testimony under Rule 403 | Rowe testimony relevant to defendant’s awareness and attempts to remedy fraud. | Evidence is probative of intent; exclusion prejudicial. | Exclusion upheld; harmless error given other evidence of knowledge and intent. |
| Admission of photos of home as motive evidence | Photos show motive and overreaching; relevant to fraud scheme. | Wealth evidence is prejudicial and should be limited. | Photos admissible under probative-motive standard; not unduly prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes tripartite Batson framework for racial discrimination in peremptory strikes)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (persuasiveness of government justification governs pretext inquiry)
- Sangineto-Miranda, United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501 (1988) (minority presence in final jury vs. pool informs discrimination likelihood)
- Yang, United States v. Yang, 281 F.3d 534 (2002) (employment/education status as race-neutral justification)
- Campbell, United States v. Campbell, 317 F.3d 597 (2003) (education and capability as race-neutral bases)
- Katuramu, United States v. Katuramu, 174 F. App’x 272 (2006) (home ownership as race-neutral basis)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (statistical disparity in minority juror exclusion as Batson factor)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (reiterates Batson pretext analysis and jury composition considerations)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) (jury panel selection must not systematically exclude distinctive groups)
- Duren v. Missouri, Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (guarantees fair cross-section of community in juries)
- Gometz, United States v. Gometz, 730 F.2d 475 (7th Cir. 1984) (no mandatory summons of no-shows; discretion to summon not mandatory)
- Jackson-Randolph, United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2002) (wealth evidence admissibility framework for identifying motive)