Opinion ID: 807192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of Howard’s Motion to Empanel a

Text: New Jury We review a district court’s decisions concerning jury impartiality for an abuse of discretion. United States v. McClinton, 135 F.3d 1178, 1186 (7th Cir. 1998). “The decision whether to dismiss any or all jurors lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge,” and we will only reverse that decision if “manifest injustice resulted from the judge’s refusal to dismiss all of the jurors.” United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 479, 492 (7th Cir. 1982)). Howard argues that the two juror notes, relaying the jurors’ concern about Howard’s note-taking during voir dire, indicate that the jury was afraid of Howard and thus prejudged him. Though Howard acknowledges that remedial measures were taken, he suggests that more should have been done, especially since one juror still seemed “angry” when asked about her note. He concedes that the jurors claimed to be impartial, but he contends that their actions suggested otherwise. We cannot accept Howard’s claims. As an initial matter, neither note conveyed that anyone was afraid of the defendant: one note simply expressed “concerns,” and the other asked whether the jurors should be afraid. In United States v. McAnderson, a juror asked if the jurors taking public transportation could be walked to the bus depot, given the severe accusations in the case. 914 F.2d 934, 943 (7th Cir. 1990). We held that the note “does not in any way demonstrate that the defendants’ jury was less 22 No. 11-2495 than fair and impartial,” and we observed that the use of the term “accusations” instead of “crimes” indicated that the jurors were sufficiently impartial. Id. Similarly, the jurors in this case all confirmed that they had not prejudged the defendant, and the jurors who had written the notes clarified that they were concerned with the procedure and were not afraid of the defendant. Further, the district court took several remedial steps to insure that the jury had not prejudged Howard. The court explained the importance of note-taking, questioned the jurors individually, asked the notes’ authors whether they were afraid of Howard, and allowed the parties to question the jurors. The jurors individually confirmed that they had not prejudged Howard. “[W]e credit jurors’ affirmation of impartiality, [a]bsent any reasons to suspect as untrue the jurors’ claims of ability to remain impartial . . . .” Lott, 442 F.3d at 984 (quoting United States v. Moutry, 46 F.3d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1995)). Finding no reason to question the jurors’ claims of impartiality, we hold that the district court acted well within its “sound discretion” when it denied Howard’s motion to empanel a new jury.