Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-07042/USCOURTS-ca10-93-07042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas David Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH • FILED 

Unated States Court cf' A::"::~:J UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit • • 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 0 5 1995 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PATRICK FISiiZR 

Clerlt 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

vs. 

THOMAS DAVID SANCHEZ, 

also known as Stimey, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 93-7042 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-92-32-S) 

Gerald R. Miller of Jones & Miller, Muskogee, Oklahoma, for 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Robert J. Erickson, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C. (John Raley, United states Attorney, Sheldon J. Sperling and 

Paul G. Hess, Assistant United States Attorneys, Muskogee, 

Oklahoma, with him on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

Defendant-appellant Thomas David Sanchez challenges his 

convictions for drug conspiracy, 21 u.s.c. § 846; interstate 

travel to promote racketeering, 18 u.s.c. §§ 1952, 2; conspiracy, 

18 u.s.c. § 371; interstate travel with intent to commit murder, 

18 u.s.c. §§ 1958, 2; and killing an individual in furtherance of 

a continuing criminal enterprise, 21 u.s.c. §§ 848(a), (e) (1) (A), 

18 u.s.c. § 2. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 u.s.c. § 1291, 

and we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 93-7042 Document: 01019276549 Date Filed: 02/05/1996 Page: 1 
Background 

The basic facts of this case are set out in United States v. 

McCullah, F.3d , No. 93-7118 (lOth Cir. 1996), and need not 

be restated here. 

Discussion 

I. Severance and Voir Dire Issues 

Mr. Sanchez was jointly tried with his codefendants, Mr. 

McCullah, Mr. Molina, and Mr. Hutching. The government sought the 

death penalty against Mr. Sanchez's codefendants but not against 

Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez contends that the trial court erred in 

not granting his motion either to sever the trial or to empanel a 

separate, non-death-qualified jury, and in refusing to allow him 

to question prospective jurors during the death-qualification 

portion of voir dire. The government and Mr. Sanchez's 

codefendants were allowed to question prospective jurors during 

that portion of voir dire. 

The trial court's denial of a severance or the empanelment of 

a separate jury is reviewable for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Dirden, 38 F.3d 1131, 1140 (lOth Cir. 1994). The trial 

court's conduct of voir dire is also reviewed under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 427 

(1991). 

Mr. Sanchez argues that he was deprived of an "impartial 

jury" and effective assistance of counsel by the trial court's 

refusal to empanel a separate jury, sever the trial, or allow his 

counsel to participate in the death-qualification portion of voir 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-7042 Document: 01019276549 Date Filed: 02/05/1996 Page: 2 
dire. This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision 

in Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987). In Buchanan, as 

here, a capital defendant and a noncapital defendant were jointly 

tried before a death-qualified jury. The Supreme Court held this 

constitutional, explaining: 

Where ... one of the joined defendants is a 

capital defendant and the capital-sentencing scheme 

requires the use of the same jury for the guilt and 

penalty phases of the capital defendant's trial, the 

interest in this scheme, which the Court recognized as 

significant ... , coupled with the [state's] interest 

in a joint trial, argues strongly in favor of permitting 

'death qualification' of the jury .... 

[T]he particular concern about the possible effect 

of an "'imbalanced' jury" in the "special context of 

capital sentencing," is not present with respect to the 

guilt and sentencing phases of a noncapital defendant in 

this case. For, at the guilt phase, the jury's 

discretion traditionally is more channeled than at a 

capital-sentencing proceeding, and, at the penalty 

phase, the jury's sentence is limited to specific 

statutory sentences and is subject to review by the 

judge. 

Id. at 419-20 (citations omitted). As in Buchanan, the capital 

sentencing scheme applicable in this case provided that the 

sentencing hearing be held before the same jury which determined 

guilt, with certain exceptions not applicable here. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 848{i) (1) (A). Further, the Buchanan Court squarely rejected Mr. 

Sanchez's contention that a "death-qualified" jury lacks 

impartiality. Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 420 (citing Lockhart v. 

McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986)). 

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting 

Mr. Sanchez's counsel from participating in the deathqualification portion of the voir dire.· As Mr. Sanchez was not 

eligible for the death penalty, that portion of the trial simply 

did not apply to him or affect his trial, and thus the trial court 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-7042 Document: 01019276549 Date Filed: 02/05/1996 Page: 3 
was within its discretion in barring Mr. Sanchez's participation. 

Cf. Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 420; McCree, 476 u.s. at 183-84. 

Further, we note that Mr. Sanchez's counsel were given equal 

opportunity to participate in the general voir dire of the jury, 

and the trial judge expressly stated at the conclusion of the 

general voir dire that he "asked all of the same questions I have 

always asked" and that the general voir dire "would not have been 

any more in detail" had Mr. Sanchez been tried separately or 

before a non-death qualified jury. 32 R. 255. 

II. Issues Raised by Codefendants 

Mr. Sanchez adopts all arguments advanced by his codefendants 

applicable to him. We have carefully considered these arguments 

and find them without merit. See United States v. McCullah, 

F.3d , No. 93-7118 (10th Cir. 1996). 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 93-7042 Document: 01019276549 Date Filed: 02/05/1996 Page: 4