United States v. Willie Richardson
412 F. App'x 798
6th Cir.2011Background
- Defendants-appellants Boulding and Richardson were convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and sentenced; Boulding faced a mandatory life term under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A),(B) and 851 based on prior felonies, while Richardson received 360 months.
- Voir dire showed a venire that appeared racially undiverse; defense objected after jury swearing, but the court found waiver and untimeliness.
- Defense argued the venire failed to represent a fair cross-section of the community, in violation of the Sixth Amendment and JSSA; trial proceeded with a jury including no apparent minorities.
- The district court held that the objection to racial makeup was untimely and waived; it did not find systemic exclusion of African-Americans.
- Richardson ultimately testified and admitted to certain drug activities but denied an agreement with Boulding to sell crack; the jury found them guilty on all counts.
- Sentencing involved a life sentence for Boulding due to prior offenses; Richardson’s guidelines range was 360 months to life, with various enhancements contested and partially sustained on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| JSSA timing and waiver validity | Boulding and Richardson claim failure to object timely violated JSSA | Waiver due to late objection; counsel lacked urgency earlier | Waiver upheld; JSSA time-bar applies |
| Fair cross-section of venire | No non-minority jurors on venire; systemic exclusion | No timely objection; trial completed | Untimely objection and waiver; no reversal on merits |
| Rule 12 timing for challenges | Rule 12(b)(3)(B) challenges must be raised before trial | Waived because raised after voir dire and swearing in | Rule 12 waiver affirmed; merits not reached |
| Constitutionality of mandatory sentences | Mandatory life sentence unconstitutional under current law | Mandatory sentences constitutional per circuit authority | Constitutionality rejected; mandatory sentences upheld |
| Supplemental pro se claims by represented defendant | Pro se claims should be considered | Standard practice to decline consideration of pro se claims | Pro se claims declined; routine practice followed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (requirement of fair cross-section in jury pools; systemic exclusion may violate the Sixth Amendment)
- Fantroy v. United States, 146 F. App’x 808 (6th Cir. 2005) (JSSA challenges must be timely; unpublished disposition cited for rule)
- Ovalle v. United States, 136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir. 1998) (challenges to jury pools treated like grand jury challenges; timing rules apply)
- Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1978) (jeopardy attaches after jury is empaneled and sworn; standard for trial procedures)
- Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1973) (Rule 12(b)(3) timing for indictments/information challenges; applies to grand jury challenges as well)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (defendant must show external factors causing waiver; mere counsel oversight not sufficient)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (U.S. 2002) (upholding constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences under current law)
- United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) (recognizes constitutionality of mandatory minimums in this circuit)