Seventh Circuit: USA v. Darrick Vallodolid

In that the political beliefs expressed about immigration policy and discriminatory law enforcement were not exclusively rooted in the venirepersons' ethnicity, their removal from the pool of jurors wasn't constitutionally impermissible.

Given the small size of the sample, statistical analysis and disparate impact analysis alone is insufficient to establish discriminatory nature of the strikes.

As the eyewitness testimony was riddled with inconsistencies beyond the exculpatory ones, it was for the finder of fact to determine its credibility.

Sufficient evidence to find that the crime was gang-related, even absent formal affiliation with the gang, in that it furthered the activities of the former gang.

Sufficient evidence of the conspiracy to admit the statement of the co-conspirator.  Statement indicating possession of drugs in the house admitted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to establish that the robbers believed there to be drugs there.

Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, given the customary procedures of the gangs and the defts' involvement with them.  Sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish drug quantities.

Federal RICO proceeding wasn't required to incorporate state predicate offense's procedural requirement of bifurcated penalty phase.

USA v.  Darrick Vallodolid

First Circuit: US v. Russell

Where a juror omits information on a written questionnaire, and that information presents a valid basis for challenge for cause, waiver is not presumed when counsel do not question the unfinished written reply at voir dire; the juror misconduct is structural error when it results in the vote of a single potentially biased juror.

Juror's lack of disclosure of de minimis contact with witness whose credibility was not at issue was sufficiently investigated by a single consultation with witness; the juror did not have to be recalled.

Drug quantities appropriately established by amounts of fertilizer purchases.

Potential juror's dozing off was sufficient neutral reason to avoid Batson challenge.

Preemptively testifying to prior convictions on direct waives appeal against admission of the convictions.

Potentially improper statements in prosecution's closing were isolated and minor comments in a much larger web of evidence.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2386P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Scott v. Gelb

Batson Habeas.

In holding that sufficient inference of racial discrimination at voir dire was not established by petitioner, since although the court sua sponte offered a nondiscriminatory reason for the strike, it was not generally indifferent to the racial composition of the jury, the state supreme court's denial of state Habeas was not an unreasonable application of the law.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1953P-01A.pdf

Seventh Circuit: USA v. J.B. Brown

Batson.

Similarities between jurors are not proof that a court did not consult the record, where the court explicitly states that the record was consulted.

With respect to comparators, false arrest is distinguishable from having charges dropped or being later found not guilty.

Lack of follow-up questioning is not proof of pretext.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:14-3652:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1680662:S:0

Ninth Circuit: Robert McDaniels v. Richard Kirkland

En Banc --  Habeas, Batson, scope of review

 Clearly established constitutional law did not require an appeals court evaluating a collateral Batson challenge to engage in comparative juror analysis.

Court did not conflate the analysis of the prosecutors' justifications with the analysis of the trial court's acceptance of the justifications.

While the court evaluating the state writ was not compelled to engage in comparative juror analysis, comparative juror analysis in the Federal collateral challenge can reveal an unreasonable application of facts in the state proceeding.

Evidence before a state trial court not introduced at state collateral proceedings doesn't implicate Pinholster.

Remanded to panel to determine if unreasonable application of facts.

Concur (3):

No substantive change in the law in the interval requiring comparative juror analysis in state Habeas.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/24/09-17339.pdf