Opinion ID: 198294
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Qualifications Dismissals

Text: 29 In order to be deemed qualified to serve as a juror on a petit jury in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, an individual must be a citizen of the United States, eighteen years of age or older, have resided for a period of one year within the judicial district, and be able to read, write, speak, and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the Juror Qualification Form and to render satisfactory jury service in this Court. District Plan at 3. 30 The district court dismissed six of the prospective jurors based on a lack of proficiency in English. Juror 16 stated that she had difficulty reading or understanding English and answered the question asking her to describe her work in general terms in Spanish. Juror 17 completed almost all of the questionnaire in Spanish. Juror 18 indicated that she had difficulty with English and also wrote in Spanish that she did not hear well. Juror 45 completed the forms entirely in Spanish. Juror 61 indicated that he had trouble with English and did not give more than a one word response in English to any of the questions requiring more than a yes or no answer. Finally, Juror 93 indicated that he had trouble reading or understanding English, but otherwise completed the questionnaire in English. After examining these questionnaires, we hold that Judge Fuste did not err by dismissing these prospective jurors. 31 The District Plan also mandates that [n]o person shall be qualified to serve ... if he is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service. Id. The district court excused two jurors for medical reasons. Juror 13 answered No to the question, Do you have any physical problem (for example, sight, hearing or other medical condition) that would interfere with your ability to serve? but a note at the bottom of the form states Eye ongoing medical [illegible]. The government contends that this note was made by the district court, but the author's identity is unclear. The district court did write on the beginning of the form: See note [page] 3 claimed ongoing eye impediment. Juror 89 stated that he had Fibrilosis Atrial and that he was currently taking daily medication. The district court excused him on account of his health and because of his answer to question # 9. Question # 9 asked the degree of education the prospective juror had achieved. Juror 89 had a law degree, but was retired. 2 Although the district court's actions, with respect to these two jurors, were questionable in that Juror 13 did not state that his medical condition would interfere with his serving as a juror and Juror 89 was dismissed in part because he holds a law degree, there was at least some medical reason why both jurors could have been excused. Accordingly, these excusals were not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255, 1269 (10th Cir.1997) (applying abuse of discretion standard to pre voir dire excusals). 32