United States v. Raymond Martin
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18187
7th Cir.2012Background
- Martin served as Sheriff of Gallatin County, Illinois (1990–2011) and was convicted on 15 counts including marijuana distribution, firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, conspiracy, witness tampering, and structuring financial transactions.
- Evidence showed Martin solicited Jeremy Potts to sell marijuana he supplied, taking a cut; marijuana came from others and Gallatin storage facilities.
- Martin threatened Potts with his county-issued service weapon to keep him selling, with three recorded deliveries in uniform and with the revolver.
- While jailed, Martin solicited two inmates to murder Potts and another witness, and tried to arrange payments and provide home addresses for the killings.
- A non-juror (CM) briefly entered the jury room; the court conducted an inquiry and jurors testified CM spoke to none of them; the court permitted trial to proceed.
- The district court misapplied the Guidelines range for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts, leading to a life sentence on those counts; conviction affirmed but sentence remanded for proper resentencing under correct guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CM's brief presence in the jury room deprived Martin of an impartial jury | Mart[in] contends Remmer-like prejudice. | Mart[in] argues presence caused bias and required Remmer-type inquiry. | No plain error; no actual or potential prejudice established; trial court proper to proceed. |
| Whether the district court erred in relying on an incorrect Guidelines range for Counts 4–5 under § 924(c) | Government asserts correct range; PSR miscalculated. | Mart[in] asserts error in guideline range affected sentence. | Remanded for resentencing with proper Guidelines range (5 and 25 years) for Counts 4 and 5. |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (presumption of prejudice from juror contact; Remmer hearing may be required to assess impact)
- Warner, 498 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007) (juror-contact errors are not structural; subject to harmless error analysis)
- Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2001) (ambiguous/innocuous communications may not require Remmer hearing)
- Brown v. Finnan, 598 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (ambiguous comments may not require Remmer hearing; context matters)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain error standard; mere presence of an alternate juror not presumptively prejudicial)
- United States v. Lucas, 670 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2012) (guidelines range for § 924(c) is the statute's minimum term; error if misapplied)