United States v. Prince
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16318
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Prince was charged with manufacturing marijuana, 25 counts of making false statements to federally licensed firearms dealers, and unlawful use of a controlled substance with a firearm; he was convicted of the marijuana count and the false statements counts, acquitted on the substance-use count, and sentenced to the mandatory minimum ten years.
- ATF investigated Prince in connection with illegal firearm parts and GunBroker.com transactions, uncovering evidence of 54 firearms, about 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and more than 200 marijuana plants at his Newton, Kansas residence.
- Investigators found Prince repeatedly provided false addresses to federally licensed firearms dealers and kept a large firearms collection at his home where the marijuana operation was located.
- The district court initially suppressed evidence seized during a search, but this court reversed, remanding for trial, and the subsequent trial proceeded with the suppressed evidence not binding on the retrial.
- During jury selection, the government used peremptory strikes to remove four jurors who expressed that marijuana should be legalized, prompting Batson-based and cross-section challenges by Prince.
- The court held the two main questions—whether jurors could be struck for marijuana- legalization views and whether a § 924(a)(1)(A) conviction requires knowledge the records would be kept—were resolved in Prince’s favor on neither point, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to strikes | Prince claims the government violated Batson by striking pro-legalization jurors. | Prince contends jurors' views on marijuana legalization are protected from peremptory strikes. | Batson does not extend to beliefs about marijuana legalization; strikes were permissible. |
| Fair cross-section of the community | Prince asserts Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section. | Prince argues petit jury composition violated cross-section principles. | Fair-cross-section does not apply to petit juries or peremptory strikes; no violation. |
| Mens rea for § 924(a)(1)(A) | Flores-Figueroa requires reading 'knowingly' to modify the record-keeping object of § 924(a)(1)(A). | Prince argues the jury instruction should require knowledge that records would be kept. | Records-keeping provision is jurisdictional; no extra mens rea required. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (false statements) | Evidence showed Prince lied about his address to dealers; address matter relevant to § 924(a)(1)(A). | Argues the address information was immaterial to the statute and not proven false. | Evidence supported that Prince knowingly provided a false address on ATF forms. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (marijuana cultivation) | Prince personally involved in growing marijuana at the Newton house. | Sons allegedly resided there; Prince contends he alone did not cultivate. | Sufficient evidence supported cultivation; jury credibility determinations sustained. |
| Sentencing under § 841 | Prior drug felony conviction facts must be found by a jury under Apprendi/Blakely line. | Prior-conviction facts may be found by the judge. | Prior-conviction fact found by judge; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges; not extended to beliefs about marijuana)
- Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1990) (peremptory challenges may exclude groups with views; cross-section not required)
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1986) (fair-cross-section not required for petit juries)
- Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1968) (narrow death-penalty context; not broadly applicable to guilt phase)
- Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1980) (limits on challenging jurors for views on capital punishment outside capital context)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886 (S. Ct. 2009) (knowingly modifies each element when analyzing direct object in statute)
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (knowingly applies to the elements involving age in distribution of pornography)
- United States v. Speir, 564 F.2d 934 (10th Cir. 1977) (knowledge of jurisdictional facts generally not required as element)