### - 1- NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 2899

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J E L ANI S OL OM ON, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- 0385- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J ul y12, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , A L D IS E R T , a n d R O T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2010 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: Jelan i So lom o n ap p ea ls from h is co n v ict ion , ch all en g ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’sT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231 1 

### an dw e h av e j urisd ictio nto h ear th is ap p eal un d er 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 .

- 2- d e c is io n to e m p a n e l a p a rt ia lly in n o m in a te ju ry, a s w e ll a s th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m Sol om on’ s convi ct i on. 1



### I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e di s cus s the fa ct s onl yt o the ext ent n e c e s s a ry f

o r d is p o s itio n o f

th is a p p e a l. Sol om on w as char ged i n a N i ne countI ndi ctm entw i th tw o co- defe ndant s , W anda Sol om on ( hi s m other ) and C l ar on H anner( hi s s i s t er ’ s boy fr i end) , w i th var i ous nar cot i cs a n d f ire a rm s o f

f e n se s. R e lev a n t to th is a p p e a l, C o u n t O n e c h a rg e d a ll th re e d e f e n d a n ts w ith c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c o c a in e . C o u n t S ix c h a rg e d S o lo m o n a n d H a n n e r w ith comm i t t i ng m ur derdur i ng and i n r el at i on t o the drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e cha r ged i n C ount O ne. T he G overnm ents oughtthe dea th penal tyagai ns tboth defe ndant s . W anda a nd H annerpl eade d gui l tyand w er e s ent ence d t o 300 m onths i m pr i s onm entand 240 mont hs i m pr i s onm ent , r es pect i vel y . Sol om on w entt o tr i al and w as found gui l tyon al l count s , but the j urydecl i ned t o i m pos e the dea th penal tyand he w as i ns t ead s ent ence d t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t. Sol om on began de al i ng drugs i n 1994 ar ound age f our t een. H i s m otherw as a drug deal erw ho oper at ed outof herhom e i n B eave rC ounty , PA . . I n 1999, Shaw n H el i s ek began t o pur chas e coc ai ne fr om Sol om on. I n 2000, H el i s ek w as arr es t ed byPenns y l vani a

### - 3-

a u th o r i t i e s a n d a g r e e d t o h e l p b u i l d a c a s e a g a i n s tS o l o m o n . D u r i n g a c o n tr o l l e d d e l i v e r y, H e lis e k w o re a w ir e a n d p ro v id e d S o lo m o n w ith te n o u n c e s o f c o c a in e w o rt h $ 7 ,0 0 0 . H e lis e k te s tif

ie d a t th e p re lim in a ry h e a ri n g a g a in s t S o lo m o n a s th e S ta te ’s p ri m a ry w itn e s s . S o lo m o n w a s re lea se d o n b o n d a n d c o n tin u e d h is d ru g d e a lin g a c tiv iti e s w h ile th e S tate c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im w e re p e n d in g . W hi l e Sol om on ul t i m at el ydeci ded t o pl ead gui l ty , he al s o t ol d hi s as s oci at es t hathe w ant ed t o ens ur e thatno one w oul d ever“s ni t ch” on hi m agai n. H e ther efor e hi r ed H annert o m ur derFr ank H el i s ek, Shaw n H el i s ek’ s father , t o s end a mes s age. T he ni ght befor e he pl eade d gui l ty , Sol om on i ns truct ed H annerw hi ch r out e t o t ake t o Fr ank’ s hous e, w her e t o park and w her e t o s hootFr ank. H annerknocked on Fr ank’ s doorar ound 10: 30 pm and s hothi m thr ee t i m es thr ough the che s tand abdomen. H annerthen metSol om on, w ho gave hi m 11 ounces of coc ai ne and $5, 000 form ur der i ng Fr ank H el i s ek. T he next d a y , S o lo m o n p lea d e d g u iltya n d w a s s e n ten c e d to 3 0 to 7 2 m o n th s in c a rc e ra tio n . S h o rtly th e re a f ter , H a n n e r w a s a p p re h e n d e d b ylaw e n f o rc e m e n t an d u lti m a telyd e c id e d to cooper at e i n t hei rcas e aga i ns tSol om on and t es t i fi ed t o hi s r ol e i n the murde rat S o lo m o n ’s tr ia l. Pr i ort o j urys el ect i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tgave the part i es not i ce thati tw as cons i der i ng empanel i ng an anonym ous j urypur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3432, and af for ded S o lo m o n a n o p p o rtu n ityto f ile o b jec tio n s. T h e C o u rt u lti m a telyd e c id e d to e m p a n e l a p arti all yinn o m inate jury , i. e., the n am es a n d p erso n al reside n ce s o f th e juro rs w ereW h ile w e g e n e ra llyre v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to e m p a n e l an in n o m in a te 2 juryfo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n , b ec au se S o lom o n d id n o t object t o the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on on the Fi r s tA m endmentgr ound he r ai s es on appea l , oron the s uffi ci encyof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j us t i fi cat i ons fori t s deci s i on, w e r evi ew thi s por t i on of hi s appea l for p la in e rr o r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

os bur gh , 6 0 2 F . 3 d 5 1 2 , 5 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ).



### - 4- w i thhel d fr om the C our tand the part i es . J ur or s di d, how ever , fi l l outan ext ens i ve 85 ques t i on ques t i onnai r e deve l oped bythe G overnm entand bySol om on, and appr oved by the C our t . I ncl uded i n t hi s ques t i onnai r e w as an i nqui ryi nt o the gene r al ar ea of r es i dence of ea ch veni r eper s on. B oth part i es w er e al s o perm i t t ed t o ques t i on the veni r eper s ons in d iv id u a lly, a n d e x e rc is e p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s . II. 18 U . S. C . § 3432 pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , thata “pe r s on char ged w i th [a] capi t al offe ns e s hal l . . . be furni s hed w i th a . . . l i s tof the veni r e[pe r s ons ] . . . s t at i ng the pl ace of abode of eac h veni r e[pe r s on] . . . exce ptthats uch l i s tof the veni r e[pe r s ons ] . . . need not be fu rni shed if the co urtfi nd s bya prepo nd erance of the evidence thatprovidi ng the li st m ayj eopar di ze the l i fe ors afe tyof anyper s on. ” ( S. A . 3) A di s tr i ctcourti s notr equi r ed 2 t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on j ur ors afe tybefor e dec i di ng t o empanel an anonym ous ju ry. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . E u

fra sio , 935 F. 2d 553, 574 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . W e have s ugges t ed ou t si de o f t he § 34 32 con t ext that di stri ctcou rt s ar e al so no trequi red t o “art i culat e exp res s fi ndi ngs ” w hen empanel i ng an anonym ous j ury , even though doi ng s o w oul d be advi s abl e. Id . In th e F ir st A m en d m en t con text, h o w ev er, w e h av e h eld th at i t i s insu ff ici en t fo r a dis tri ctcou rtt o rel yon con cl usoryand gen eri c fi nd i ng s t o just i fyres tri ct i ng pu bli c access

### - 5-

to p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs . U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , 537 F. 3d 222, 241 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e have al s o hel d thats o l ong as a def endanti s perm i t t ed a f

ul l voi rdi r e, a di s tr i ctcourtm ay empanel an anonym ous j ury“i f the courtbel i eves ther e i s pot ent i al forj ur or appr ehens i on. ” See e . g. , E u fra sio , 9 3 5 F .2 d a t 5 7 4 . H e re , the D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d its re a so n in g f o r e m p a n e lin g a p a rtially i nnom i nat e j ury , not i ng thati thad hea r d t es t i m onydur i ng pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs and cha nge of p l ea hea ri ng s:

T hat , i f bel i eved b y the j ur or s , m i ghtw el l caus e [the j ury ] t o be ap p reh en sive – n o t on lyfo r th eir ow n saf etyb u t, p erh ap s m o re acut el y , forthe s afe tyof thei rfami l i es . Itcannotbe i gnor ed that D e f e n d a n t S o lo m o n is c h a rg e d in C o u n t S ix . . . w ith w illf u l l y, d e lib e ra tely , m a licio u sly , an d w ith p re m e d itatio n c a u sin g th e d e a th of an i n n o c e n tp e r s o n . . . . [ T] h e g o v e rn me n twi l l b e p r o f f e r i ng evi d ence t o att empt t o pr ove thatD efe ndantcontr act ed w i th and p a id a c o -d e f

e n d a n t d ru g s a n d m o n e y to k ill th e v ictim in o rd e r to i nt i m i dat e and/ orr et al i at e aga i ns tthe vi ct i m ’s s o n w ho w as expec t ed t o t es t i fy agai ns t D efe ndant i n a cr i m i nal drug di s tr i but i on trial th e n e x t d a y . T h e se u n d e rly in g f a c ts, if b e liev e d , c o u ld e a sily re s u lt in th e p o te n tia l f

o r j u ro r a p p re h e n s io n . ( S. A . 3. ) T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeci ded thatthe pr eponder ance of the evi dence w ei ghed i n favorof empanel i ng a part i al l yanonym ous j ury . W e agr ee. R el y i ng on W

echt , S o lom o n arg u es, fo r th e f ir st t im e, th at th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s r eas oni ng w as concl us oryand gene r i c and doe s “notover come t he pr es um pt i on that ju ro r’s n a m e s s h o u ld re m a in in th e p u b lic d o m a in .” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 2 9 . Y e t, S o lo m o n ’s c laim th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e a so n in g w a s c o n c lu so rya n d g e n e ric is itse lf concl us oryand unper s uas i ve. D es pi t e Sol om on’ s pr ot es t at i on t o the contr ary , the D i s tr i ct

### - 6-

C our tdi d gi ve a s peci fi c r eas on fori t s rul i ng: thatthe natur e of the cha r ges — havi ng a w i tnes s ’ s fatherm ur der ed and the coope r at i ng w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m onyr ecount i ng that m u rd e r— s u p p o rt e d e m p a n e lin g a p a rt ia lly a n o n ym o u s ju ry. Fur therm or e, Sol om on’ s r el i ance on W echt is m is p la c e d . W

echt i nvol ved an i nt er l ocut oryappea l br oughtbym edi a out l et s thatobj ect ed t o j ur oranonym i tybas ed on the Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o publ i c ac ces s t o tr i al s . 537 F. 3d at240- 41. W e r ever s ed the di s tr i ctcourt , hol di ng thati thad fa i l ed t o art i cul at e “the nec es s aryfi ndi ngs and cons i der at i on of al t ernat i ves t o over come t he pr es um pt i on thatj ur or s ’ names s houl d be publ i cl yavai l abl e. ” Id . a t 2 3 9 . W echt w as a Fi r s tA m endmentcas e thatdoes notm ent i on § 3432. A ddi t i onal l y , unl i ke i n W echt , w h ere there w as n o ind icati o n that the d ef en d an t’ s fr i ends and r el at i ves w oul d be i ncl i ned t o i nfl uence j ur or s , her e, Sol om on s t ood acc us ed of m u rd e ri n g a w itn e s s ’s f a th e r. C f. U n itedS ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 8 5 0 F . 2 d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 7 (3d C ir . 1988) ( aff

i r m i ng anonym ous empanel i ng of the j uryw hen the def endanthad s ol i ci t ed the m u rd e rs o f

a ju d g e a n d o f

p ro s p e c tiv e w itn e s s e s ). F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t em p a n e l an e n tirelya n o n ym o u s ju ry . R a th e r, it cra fted a c o m p rom ise an d w ith h eld f rom it self a n d b o th p arti es o n lythe p rosp ec ti v e juro rs n am es a n d sp ec ifi c a d d resse s. Ind ee d , juro rs fil led o u t an e x tens ive q u esti o n n aire devel oped byboth part i es , and i ndi cat ed thei rgener al ar ea of r es i dence i n r es pons e t o one ques t i on. M or eover , as not ed, both part i es w er e al s o perm i t t ed t o ques t i on the v e n ir e p e rs o n s in d iv id u a lly, a n d to e x e rc is e p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s .W e w i l l s us t ai n a j uryver di ct“i f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence , t aki ng the vi ew 3 m os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , t o s uppor ti t . I f anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have found the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , then the ver di ctof the j urym us tbe s us t ai ned. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. V

oigt , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s & c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Sol om on confl at es hi s s uffi ci encyof the evi dence ar gum entw i th an al l egat i on of 4 a var i ance betw een the cons pi r acychar ged i n the I ndi ctm entand the evi dence i ntr oduced attr i al . T o t he ext entthatSol om on ar gues a var i ance betw een the s i ngl e cons pi r acy c h a rg e d in C o u n t O n e a n d th e p u rp o rte d m u lti p le c o n sp ira c ies p ro v e d a t trial, this c laim a l s o f a i l s . N o to n l y w a s th e e v i d e n c e m o r e th a n s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o v e a s i n g l e c o n s p i r a c y, butthe j urychar ge i ncl uded an i ns truct i on on s i ngl e ver s us m ul t i pl e cons pi r aci es , cur i ng a n yp o te n tia l d e f

e c t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).



### - 7- A ccor di ngl y , Sol om on has nots how n anyerr or , m uch l es s pl ai n err or , and th e re f o re , w e a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to e m p a n e l a p a rt ia lly in n o m in a te ju ry. N ext , Sol om on chal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence us ed t o convi cthi m of th e c o c a in e c o n sp ira c y . In tu rn , h e a lso c h a llen g e s h is c o n v ictio n o n C o u n t S ix , m u rd e r in ai d of drug tr aff

i cki ng, s i nce he s houl d have be en ac qui t t ed of the drug cons pi r acy . A ft er 3 r e v i e w i n g th e e x t e n s i v e tr i a l tr a n s c r i p t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y th e c o o p e r a t i n g w i tn e s s e s ’ t e s t i m o n y, w e fi nd the evi dence i ntr oduced a ttr i al w as undoubt edl ys uffi ci entt o s uppor tconvi ct i ons on C ou nts O ne an d S i x, and w e t herefore affi rm these co nv i ct i on s. 4 

### III. F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m ent o f

th e D istrict C o urt.