2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-16-2004 

# U S A v . T o dm a n P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2389

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . T odm a n " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 71. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/71NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-2389

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. DEVAUGHN TODMAN, Appellant

On A ppeal from the District Cou rt of the Virgi n Islands (D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr- 00737-02) District Judge: H on. Tho mas K . Moo re
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 13, 2004 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, F UE NT ES and GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: December 16, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT1 The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdiction pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 3231; this court has

jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S .C. §§ 12 91, 1294 (3). 2 SL OV ITE R, Circuit

Judge
. Appellant

Devaughn Todman w as convicted of possess ion of cocai ne with intent to dis tri bute, a violation of 21 U.S. C. § 841(a)( 1), fol lowing a jur y t rialin the Dis tri ct Court of the Virgin Islands. 1 Todman argues on appeal that t he District Court

erred by denyi ng his moti on for a judgment of acquittal and by fai ling to excuse a j uror who worked in an organi zati on that represented a party adver se to t he party repres ented by Todman’s defense couns el in an unrelated matter . Inas much as we are writing only for the part ies and t he District Court , we need not se t fort h the det ails of the fact

ual or procedu ral backgro und in this m atter. We w ill limit our discussion to our rati o decidendi
. For the reasons that foll ow, we reject both of Todm an’s claims. I. In revi ewing a jury

verdict for suffi ciencyof the evi dence, we “must cons ider t he evide nce in the ligh t mos t favo rable to the go vern men t and a ffirm the jud gm ent if th ere is substant ial e vidence fr om which any rationaltri er of fact could fi nd guilt

beyond a reasonabl e doubt. ” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 3 F.3d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1993) (i nternal citatio ns a nd q uot ation s om itted ). In this c ase, the evide nce p resen ted to th e jury w as suf ficien t to sup port its conclusion that Todm an posse ssed coca ine with an intent to distribute. The jury heard evidence t

hat on January 26, 2000, Poli ce Officer J ames Marrishow was conducti ng3

traffi c stops on Donoe By pass Road, St . Thomas, Vir gin Isl ands, for the purpos es of checking l icenses , regi strations and insur ance coverage. He observed a white sports -uti lit

y vehi cle pul l out of t

he line of vehicl es approachi ng the checkpoi nt and
revers e at a hi gh rate of speed. When Officer

Marrishow pull ed the vehi cle t o the si de of the roa d, he o bserv ed T odm an ru n to the vehic le’s rear and to ss a w hite ba g into shrubbery

lini ng the si de of the r oad. This bag was retrieved and for ensic testi ng reveal ed that it con tained two sepa rately wra pped pack ages of co caine , totaling a ppro xima tely 2,015 grams. We have held th at “[w ]hen a def enda nt is fo und in po ssessio n of a suf ficien tly large q uantity of drug s, an inte nt to dis tribute m ay logica lly be infer red fr om the qu antity of drugs al one.” United States v. Rodri guez , 961 F.2d 1089, 1092 (3d Cir. 1992). I n the pre sen t cas e, T odm an w as f oun d in pos sess ion of m ore than two kilo gra ms of c oca ine, a quan tity sufficien t to perm it the infe rence of inte nt to dis tribute. M oreo ver, the jury could have logi call y concluded from Todman’s acti ons in dri ving away from the poli ce stop and tossing the coc aine pack age that he k new he posse ssed coca ine and tha t his actions we re consistent with an atte mpt to avoi d police detection. Thi s evidence , toge ther wit h the quantit y of cocaine, is more t

han suffici ent to s upport t he jury ’s concl usion that Todman pos sess ed w ith an inten t to d istrib ute. See also United States v. J oseph , 800 F. Supp. 1303, 13 10 (D . V.I. 1992).2 The relevant exchange w as as follows: Juror No. 26: I work for Legal Services, I’m a lega l assi stant , and I appear befor e administ

rati ve proceedi ngs repre senti ng indigent people. And Attorney Derr was on the other si de of one case. So, and the ca se is still-- The Court: I t hasn’ t been set tled? Juror N o. 26: R ight. The Co urt: So , is there a nything a bou t your relatio nship that w ould affe ct your ab ility to be fair a nd im partial? Do you think it wo uld carry over i nto this? Juror No. 26: Under the ci rcumstance s, that it ’s stillgoing on, y ou kn ow , it’ s a po ss ib ilit y. The Court: I t’s how it

would affect y ou. Can you put it as ide, or do you think it

would tend to make y ou eithe r favor t he government or favor M r. Derr? Juror No. 26: That may not happen, but

I may be s til l invol ved in the reali ty of the cas e. The Court: Which cas e?
4 II. During voir

dire, juror

number 26, Avis Bla ckman, informed the court that s he was a legalassis tant f

or an organi zati on repres enting i ndigent pe ople, and that Todman’s tri al
coun sel serv ed as opp osing coun sel in an active adm inistrative proc eedin g un related to the Todman matter . In r esponse t o questi oning by the court , she as sured the court t hat she could be fai r and impart ial i n the pres ent case . 2 The court se ated her to the j ury . NeitherJuror No. 26: The same case. The Court: Well , that has not hing to do wit

h this case. Juror N o. 26: I u nder stand that. The Court: So, you’ re say ing that you think it

may carry over and affect your ability to be fair and im partial? Yo u see, wh at we’re interested in finding out is wh ether or not you’ll be ab le to give M r. Tod man and th e gov ernm ent a f air trial. Juror N o. 26: I w ould be ab le to do that. Jo in t Ap p. at

37A -3 9A. 5 the government

nor Todman offered anyobjection. Todman now argues on appea l that the Dist rict Court’s f

ailure to excl ude Ms. Blackman viol ated hi s right to a fai r and imparti al jur

y under the Sixt h Amendment. Because there was no objection, we revi ew for plain erro r un der Fed eral R ule o f C rimi nal P roc edu re 5 2(b ). United States v. Barbosa , 271 F .3d 438, 45 3 (3d C ir. 2001). “[B]efore an appe llate court c an correc t an err or not r aised at tri al, there must

be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affect [s] subs tanti al ri ghts. ” Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997) ( internal quotations and cit ation omi tted) . The dev iatio n fr om a leg al ru le is “ erro r,” an d an erro r is “p lain” if it is “ clea r” o r “o bvi ous .” United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (i nternalquotati ons and cit ations
om itted ). In m ost c ase s, an erro r aff ects sub stan tial rig hts if it is pr ejud icial, i.e
. , if it “affecte d the outc ome of the dis tri ct court proceedi ngs.” Id. at 734. We have discretion to corr ect the forfei ted err or, but should not

exerci se that

discr etion unl ess “the error6

serio usly af fec t[s] th e fa irne ss, in tegr ity or pu blic r epu tatio n of jud icial p roc eed ing s.” Johnson , 520 U.S. at 467 (internal quotations and citati ons omitted). Unlike a harmless
error analy sis, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrati ng that t he error was prejud icial. See Olano , 507 U.S. at 734. Todm an argue s that because of M s. Blackm an’s em ployment, the D istrict Court should have found i mplied or presumed bias and t hat it s fail ure to exc lude her f rom the juryconsti tutes revers ible e rror. We disagree. Actual bi as may be s hown by eit her “expre ss admiss ion of the juror ,” United States v. Cerrato-Reyes , 176 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10 th Cir. 1999), or it maybe “found by t

he court[, ] based upon the juror ’s voir dire ans wers.” Id. ; see also United States v. Torres , 128 F.3d 38, 43 ( 2d Cir. 1997) . The Supreme Court ha s stated that a findi ng of actual bias “is base d up on d eterm ination s of d eme anor and c redibility that a re pec uliarly with in a tri al judge ’s provi nce.” Wa inw right v. W itt , 469 U .S. 412, 428 (1985). In contr ast, the is sue “for i mplied bi as is whether an aver age person i n the posi tion of the j uror i n controver sy would be prejudi ced.” Torres , 128 F .3d at 4 5; see also Cerrato- Reyes , 176 F .3d at 1 260 (stating th at find ing o f imp lied bia s “is ap prop riate wh ere the juror, alth oug h she believ es that s he ca n be im partial, is so closely co nnec ted to the c ircu ms tanc es a t issu e in th e tria l that bias is pre sum ed” ). A f inding of im plied b ias is
reserved for thos e extre me situat ions and exce ptionalcircumst ances that lea ve “seri ous questi on whether the tri al court subjected the defendant to manifes tly

unjust proceduresresul ting i n a miscarriage of j usti ce.” Smith v. Phi lli ps , 455 U .S. 209, 222 (1982)

(O’C onnor, J., concu rring). Applyi ng these principl es to t he facts of the cas e, we conclude t hat Todman has fail ed to est ablis h eithe r actua l or i mplied bi as. Duri ng voir di re, Ms. Bla ckman assured the court that s he could re main fair and impartial. The Distri ct Court, with the be nefit of direct questi oning and observation, determi ned that Ms. Blackman was credibl e and unb iased, a nd th erefo re fit to sit o n the ju ry. We se e no r easo n to rev erse th is dete rmin ation
. See Rosales- Lopez v. United St ates , 451 U.S . 182 , 188 (19 81)
. Furth ermo re, any bia s inhe rent to M s. Blac km an’s e mp loymen t is too atte nuate d to
con stitute “im plied bias ” un der the s tring ent s tand ard enu ncia ted a bov e. Sm ith , 455 U. S. at 222 (O ’Conn or, J., concurring). Bec au se Tod man ha s f

ai le d t o e st ab li sh an y ba si s f orpr es ume d or

im pl ie d bi as , w e find that t he D istrict Co urt d id n ot co mm it pla in er ror in sitting M s. B lack ma n to the ju ry. III. For the above reasons, we will affi rm the Dist rict Court’s j udgment of sent ence and conviction.