United States v. Ronald Zitt
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7466
7th Cir.2013Background
- Zitt and Wampler were charged in a multi-count heroin conspiracy and distribution indictment; Zitt was convicted after a jury trial and Wampler pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin.
- Zitt appealed challenging the district court’s denial of a mistrial after a government witness referenced Summers’s imprisonment and Zitt’s jail time, arguing it was prejudicial.
- The district court offered remedies (a recess or admonition) which Zitt declined; the trial proceeded and the jury found Zitt guilty on all counts.
- Wampler moved to withdraw his guilty plea after a presentence report mislabelled him as a career offender; the district court denied withdrawal and sentenced him below the guidelines.
- Wampler’s counsel moved to withdraw under Anders; Wampler responded, and the court limited review to counsel’s brief and Wampler’s response.
- The court ultimately affirmed Zitt’s conviction, granted counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw in Wampler’s case, dismissed Wampler’s appeal, and denied substitute counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial denial for Summers remark | Zitt; Summers’s answer was improper and prejudicial | Zitt; the answer was improper and required mistrial | No abuse; remark was harmless and not prejudicial |
| Appeal waiver validity | Wampler waived appeal as part of his plea | Waiver valid and dispositive; Anders relief inappropriate | Waiver valid; Anders relief denied; appeal dismissed |
| Plea validity and waiver enforceability | Plea colloquy complied with Rule 11; waiver enforceable | Ineffective assistance claim could be raised; some ambiguity | Plea knowingly and voluntarily made; waiver enforceable; ineffective assistance better for collateral review |
| Harmlessness of the Summers remark | Cumulative evidence was weakly affected by remark | Harmless beyond reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence | Harmless error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Keskes, 703 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in mistrial rulings)
- Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1997) (risk in examining another party’s witness and trial strategy)
- United States v. Powell, 652 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2011) (witness testimony responsive and not grounds for mistrial)
- United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295 (7th Cir. 1995) (proper response to defense questioning)
- United States v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1996) (evasion of mistrial when defense triggers testimony)
- United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 1999) (isolated inflammatory testimony not grounds for mistrial)
- Vargas, 689 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2012) (harmlessness in light of overwhelming evidence)
- Prieto, 549 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2008) (hawthorned analysis of testimonial impact under Chapman framework)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard)