United States v. Raymond Brown, 66 V.I. 895

Brown and co-defendant Walter Hill were tried jointly on a multi-defendant cocaine conspiracy, though the indictment no longer alleged they conspired with each other.
The district court empanelled two separate juries (Panel A for Brown; Panel B for Hill) after explaining the procedure on the record and obtaining counsel’s assent; Brown’s counsel explicitly said there was no objection.
Panel A convicted Brown on one count (use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug crime) and acquitted him on nine others; Panel B convicted Hill on multiple counts.
At sentencing the court calculated an advisory Guidelines range (78–97 months) but imposed the statutory maximum (48 months) under U.S.S.G. §5G1.1(a); Brown did not object at sentencing.
On appeal Brown argued (1) empanelling dual juries violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and (2) this court should reconsider Flores‑Mejia and require trial courts to solicit sentencing objections.

Issue	Brown's Argument	Government/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether empanelling dual juries violated Brown’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights	Dual juries exposed Brown’s jurors to irrelevant evidence and risked prejudice; counsel’s assent should not waive his personal constitutional rights	Dual juries are not per se unconstitutional; no contemporaneous objection; counsel expressly agreed; Brown did not show specific undue prejudice	Affirmed — Dual juries are permissible; absent clear and substantial prejudice causing manifestly unfair trial, no plain error shown
Whether this court should overturn Flores‑Mejia and require sentencing courts to solicit objections	Court should require the sentencing court to solicit objections rather than placing burden on defendants to object post‑sentence	Flores‑Mejia remains binding; Brown did not challenge his sentence on appeal so no need to revisit the doctrine here	Declined to reconsider Flores‑Mejia; no effect because Brown did not appeal his sentence

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plain‑error review framework for unpreserved trial errors)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (Rule 14 and severance standard; trial court discretion to tailor relief)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (four‑part plain‑error test)
United States v. Flores‑Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (defendant must object after sentence to preserve certain procedural errors)