Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08077/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorentz G. Opdahl
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

... 

FI LED 

United Scacn Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

JUL 12 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

LORENTZ G. OPDAHL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-8077 

) (D.C. No. CR87-0035-01B) 

) ( D. Wyo. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

a s sist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a ); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submi tted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Prose defendant-appellant Lorentz G. Opdahl appeals the 

distri ct court's denial of his motion to set aside indictment and 

convi c t ion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) and 12(f). 

Jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On appeal, Opdahl 

asse rts the trial court erred in proceeding under grand and petit 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes o f establishing the doctrines of the law of 

t he case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 89-8077 Document: 010110038338 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 1 
jury selection plans which violated the Jury Selection & Service 

Act of 19681 (Jury Selection Act) and the sixth amendment. We 

affirm. 

In June, 1982, Opdahl testified as a witness before a federal 

grand jury in Cheyenne, Wyoming, which was investigating a 

common-law trust scheme designed to avoid federal income taxes. 

He was not indicted as a result of his testimony, although others 

were. In November, 1986, Opdahl was a witness in a criminal trial 

involving the same tax avoidance scheme. During his testimony, he 

directly contradicted statements made at the earlier grand jury 

proceedings. As a result, he was tried and found guilty in July, 

1987 , of t wo counts of knowingly making false statements before a 

g r and jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. He did not appeal 

his conviction. 

On August 7, 1989, Opdahl, through counsel, filed a motion 

seeking to set aside his conviction, asserting the grand jury 

selection plan in Wyoming violated the sixth amendment and the 

Jury Selection Act. Opdahl's motion was premised on a decision of 

the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming which 

held the selection plan was unconstitutional because it 

e f fectively excluded Arapahoe and Shoshone Indians from sitting on 

grand juries. See United States v. Tranakos, 690 F. Supp. 971 

(D. Wyo. 1988). The Tranakos case involved the June, 1982, grand 

ju r y investigating the tax avoidance scheme. See United States v. 

Anderson, 577 F. Supp. 223, 226 (D. Wyo. 1983) rev'd, 778 F.2d 602 

(10th Cir. 1985)(related decision predating Tranakos and giving 

1 28 u.s.c. §§ 1861-1878. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-8077 Document: 010110038338 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 2 
factual background of indictments involved). The district court 

denied Opdahl's motion, ruling he had waived any defects in the 

indictment by not raising them prior to trial. 

In this appeal, we are presented with two issues. First, we 

must determine whether Opdahl waived his rights under the Jury 

Selecti o n Ac t a nd the sixth amendment by not objecting to the 

grand and petit jury plans prior to or during trial. Second, 

assuming waiver, we must decide whether Opdahl has shown "good 

cause" under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(f) for granting relief. 

We turn first to Opdahl's claim under the Jury Selection Act. 

This Act confers a statutory, rather than constitutional, 

enti t lement to both grand and petit juries chosen from a fair 

c ross section of the community. 2 Section 1867(a) specifically 

provides that objections based o n the Act must be raised "before 

t he voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the 

defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of 

diligence, the grounds therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a). There is 

no dispute that Opdahl failed to raise this claim in a timely 

manner. Therefore, it is barred. See United States v. Young, 822 

2 28 U.S.C. § 1861 states: 

It is the policy of the United States that all 

litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury 

shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected 

at random from a fair cross section of the community in 

the district or division wherein the court convenes. It 

is further the policy of the United States that all 

citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for 

service on grand and petit juries in the district courts 

of the United States, and shall have an obligation to 

se r v e a s jurors when summoned for that purpose. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-8077 Document: 010110038338 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 3 
F.2d 1234, 1239 (2d Cir. 1987)(relief under the Jury Selection Act 

is barred for failure to comply with statutory procedures). 

We now turn to Opdahl's sixth amendment claim. As a 

preliminary matter, we note that both the motion to set aside 

indictment and conviction and the docketing statement filed in 

this case on behalf of Opdahl assert claims based only on the 

grand jury selection process. 3 They do not appear to assert petit 

jury claims. The June, 1982, grand jury did not indict Opdahl. 

He only testified before it. Therefore, he has no standing to 

raise a claim associated with it. 

Opdahl's prose brief, however, appears to raise a claim 

based on the selection of the petit jury which convicted him. 

Therefore, we will consider this claim. Under the sixth 

amendment, Opdahl is entitled to a petit jury "drawn from a source 

fairly representative of the community." Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 

U.S. 522, 538 (1975). However, this constitutional right can be 

waived by the failure to assert it in a timely fashion pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12. Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 238 

(1973); Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 362 

(1963). 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b) requires that any defense objection or 

request capable of determination prior to trial must be made in a 

pretrial motion. Failure to do so constitutes waiver under 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(f). Here, it is undisputed that Opdahl did 

not raise an objection to the petit jury selection process prior 

3 Opdahl was represented by counsel through the filing of a 

docketing statement in this court. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-8077 Document: 010110038338 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 4 
to trial, or at any time during or immediately after trial. The 

first time the issue was raised was in the motion to set aside 

indictment and conviction filed two years after sentencing. 

Therefore, Opdahl waived his right to assert his objection to the 

petit jury selection process. 

However, Rule 12(f) also provides that the court may grant 

relief from the waiver for "good cause shown." Opdahl has failed 

to provide any facts justifying relief in this case. All the 

information regarding the petit jury was available to Opdahl at 

the time of trial. Further, he has not shown any prejudice as a 

result of the petit jury selection process. See Davis, 411 U.S. 

at 244 (quoting Shotwell, 371 U.S. at 363)("'[I]t is entirely 

proper to take absence of prejudice into account in determining 

whether a sufficient showing has been made to warrant relief from 

the effect of [Fed. R. Crim. P. 12]. '"). In fact, it appears the 

case against Opdahl was a strong one. 

Although Opdahl asserts the Tranakos case triggered notice 

that the plan was unconstitutional, there is nothing in this 

record to indicate he relied on previous decisions upholding 

Wyoming's jury selection plan in making a decision not to raise an 

objection prior to trial. 4 Consequently, we uphold the district 

court's disposition. 

4 We also note, in the alternative, that the decision in 

Tranakos cannot be retroactively applied to upset Opdahl's final 

conviction. See Teague v. Lane, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1074 

(1989)(setting forth considerations supporting policy decision to 

uphold final convictions). 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-8077 Document: 010110038338 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 5 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-8077 Document: 010110038338 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 6