United States v. Renee Pratt
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17987
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Renee Gill Pratt, former Louisiana state representative and New Orleans councilmember, was charged solely with conspiracy to violate RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) based on an alleged enterprise that funneled public funds to nonprofit entities controlled by Pratt and the Jeffersons.
- Multiple superseding indictments narrowed defendants until a fourth superseding indictment named Pratt alone; it omitted substantive counts but preserved detailed allegations about the Jeffersons and specific acts of mail fraud and money laundering alleged as the pattern of racketeering.
- After extensive voir dire (questionnaires, individual questioning by the judge, counsel present but not permitted to question directly), Pratt was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment; she appealed.
- Pratt’s appellate challenges: (1) inadequate voir dire and denial of strikes for cause (impairing peremptory use), (2) Batson challenge to government’s peremptory strikes of black jurors, (3) insufficiency of the fourth superseding indictment to identify the racketeering pattern (due process/double jeopardy), and (4) Guidelines errors at sentencing (use of money-laundering base and misapplied enhancements).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction, rejected the voir dire and Batson claims, held the indictment sufficient, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court misapplied the Guidelines (used money-laundering calculations and an inapplicable enhancement rather than correctly applying the instructions in §2E1.1/§2S1.1/§2B1.1).
Issues
| Issue | Pratt’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire adequacy and refusal to allow counsel to question jurors directly; failure to dismiss biased jurors for cause | District court’s unilateral questioning and limited follow-up failed adequately to expose bias from extensive pretrial publicity; some biased jurors remained | Court’s procedures (questionnaire, individual juror questioning, follow-ups, counsel present to propose questions) matched Skilling and were sufficient; no manifest bias shown | Affirmed: voir dire not an abuse of discretion; judge may conduct questioning and counsel had opportunity to request follow-ups; seating jurors after peremptories satisfied Sixth Amendment |
| Forced use of peremptory strikes / denial of jury-for-cause challenges | Denying challenges for cause forced Pratt to expend peremptories and impaired her rights | Use of peremptories is not a constitutional right; defendant’s strategic use of peremptories cures for-cause denials absent deliberate misapplication or seating of biased jurors | Affirmed: no evidence the court deliberately misapplied law or that any seated juror was biased; Pratt’s acceptance of the final panel waived further challenge |
| Batson challenge to government’s striking of five of six black venire members | Strikes were racially motivated; the stark numbers show purposeful discrimination and the prosecutor’s reasons were pretextual | Government offered race-neutral, case-specific explanations for each strike; district court found prosecutor credible | Affirmed: district court’s credibility findings not clearly erroneous; Pratt did not show implausible or fantastical reasons or similarly situated nonblack jurors accepted for identical reasons |
| Sufficiency of fourth superseding indictment (pattern of racketeering / double jeopardy protection) | Indictment failed to identify the specific pattern of racketeering activity; thus Pratt couldn’t prepare a defense or invoke double jeopardy protection | Indictment tracked statutes, alleged enterprise participants and detailed multiple instances of mail fraud and money laundering — sufficiently specific to permit defense and later double jeopardy claims | Affirmed: indictment constitutionally sufficient; may allege multiple acts/patterns and still protect against future prosecutions based on same factual allegations |
| Sentencing Guidelines calculation (choice of underlying offense and specific enhancements) | Court applied inapplicable enhancement and treated loss as amount laundered; miscalculated offense level | Government contends any error was harmless because 87 months falls within the PSR’s mail-fraud–based range (70–87) | Sentence vacated and remanded: district court plainly erred by using money-laundering methodology and an inapplicable §2B1.1(b)(8)(A) enhancement; error affected substantial rights because court relied on the incorrect Guidelines range when selecting 87 months |
Key Cases Cited
- Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) (trial courts have ample discretion in conducting voir dire)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (extensive screening, individual questioning, and follow-up can render court-conducted voir dire adequate)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes; three-step burden-shifting framework)
- Martinez-Salazar v. United States, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (peremptory challenges are procedural, not constitutional, rights)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (indictment must allege elements and sufficient facts to inform the accused)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error review)
- Bieganowski v. United States, 313 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) (standards for voir dire adequacy review)