619 F. App'x 904
11th Cir.2015Background
- Rose Marks was convicted of a fortune-telling fraud scheme on multiple counts and sentenced to 121 months.
- Counts included conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, multiple wire fraud counts, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and filing false tax returns.
- On appeal, she challenges voir dire, Brady/Giglio/Jencks handling, and loss calculation for sentencing.
- The panel affirmed denial of individual voir dire errors as plain error, found no Brady/Giglio/Jencks violation, and held loss was properly considered for sentencing.
- Court ultimately affirmed the judgment and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire was constitutionally adequate | Marks argues individual questioning of venire members was required. | Court held the voir dire was not plainly erroneous and sufficient to protect against prejudice. | No reversible error; no plain error in voir dire. |
| Whether the government violated Brady, Giglio, or Jencks Act | Marks asserts suppression of favorable evidence and perjured testimony. | Government did not possess/exist evidence requiring disclosure; no false testimony known. | No Brady, Giglio, or Jencks violation proven. |
| Whether loss amount for sentencing was miscalculated | Marks urged a different loss figure for a higher or lower offense level. | Court properly determined loss; Marks invited any error by requesting a specific amount. | Loss amount properly considered; sentence within guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1991) (standard for fundamental unfairness in voir dire remains high bar)
- Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981) (trial court’s voir dire discretion; impartial jury obligation)
- Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1999) (bias concerns must show potential actual prejudice)
- Pantle, 637 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review requires controlling authority)
- Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework for unpreserved claims)
- Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing voir dire discretion)