Navigation

Archive | jury

Tuesday, September 17th, 2024

Ghislaine Maxwell’s convictions upheld

The Second Circuit has affirmed Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal convictions, see No. 22-1426 (2d Cir. Sep. 17, 2024). Maxwell is the notorious codefendant of the even more notorious Jeffrey Epstein: per the Second Circuit, “Maxwell coordinated, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of women and underage girls” between 1994 and 2004.

After Epstein’s death at the now-shuttered MCC jail, Maxwell was tried before a jury and convicted of conspiracy and sex trafficking offenses. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

On appeal, Maxwell’s lawyers argued that her prosecution was barred by Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida; that her indictment came after the applicable statute of limitations had run as to certain offenses; that she was prejudiced by a constructive amendment or variance from her indictment; that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable; and that she should have been granted a new trial based on a …

Posted by
Categories: jury, jury selection

Posted By
Categories: jury, jury selection

Continue Reading
Friday, September 6th, 2024

District court erred in allowing eleven-person jury to convict the defendant, but the error is (1) not structural and (2) harmless under harmless-error analysis.

Judge Menashi’s opinion for the majority in United States v. Ricky Johnson, 2d Cir. No. 22-1289 (Sep. 6, 2024) (Menashi, joined by Englemayer, D.J.) affirms Johnson’s conviction for making threats, but creates a circuit split –and provokes a strong dissent from Judge Chin – in the process. Johnson (represented by this Office) challenged his conviction on several grounds, but the focus is his Rule 23 argument.

Specifically, Johnson argued that the district court erred when, before the jury retired to deliberate, it (1) dismissed a juror for cause over defense objection; and then (2) allowed the remaining eleven-person jury to proceed and then to deliberate (and convict) without a written stipulation from the parties. Johnson contends that his conviction by the eleven-person jury is structural error, warranting a new trial without consideration of harmlessness.

Everyone agrees with Johnson that the district court erred: Under Rule 23, a district court …

Posted by
Categories: jury

Posted By
Categories: jury

Continue Reading
Friday, October 11th, 2019

Internally inconsistent verdict on a single count (involving a single defendant) requires dismissal

It is long settled that inconsistency between or among counts of conviction is not a ground for dismissal. See, e.g., Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 (1932); and United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 61-69 (1984). The same rule applies to jury verdicts that are inconsistent as to different defendants in a joint trial. See United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 279 (1943). As the Supreme Court broadly stated in Rivera v. Harris, 454 U.S. 339, 345-46 (1981), the jury possesses “the unreviewable power [] to return a verdict of not guilty for impermissible reasons” and “[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside.”

None of those cases, however, concerned a verdict that is internally inconsistent as to the same count and the same defendant. The Second Circuit recently encountered that situation in United States v. Janine …

Posted by
Categories: charge, jury, jury charge, jury trial, verdict

Posted By
Categories: charge, jury, jury charge, jury trial, verdict

Continue Reading
Saturday, August 14th, 2010

We Can Recall

United States v. Rojas, No. 09-3007-cr (2d Cir. August 12, 2010) (Jacobs, Wesley, Chin, CJJ)

Nicholas Rojas was convicted of participating in crack conspiracy. On the written verdict form, the jury found that he was involved with five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing “cocaine base.” However, when the courtroom deputy polled the jury, he misread the verdict form, describing the drug as “cocaine,” not “cocaine base.”

The error was discovered only after the poll was completed and the jury had been “discharged” and returned to the deliberation room to “await the thanks of the court for its service.” Although the defense did not consent to having the jury returned to the courtroom to be re-polled, the judge nevertheless recalled the jury. He explained to the recalled jurors what had happened, had the deputy the verdict again, re-polled them, and discharged them again.

On Rojas’ appeal, the …

Posted by
Categories: jury, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: jury, Uncategorized

Continue Reading