Opinion ID: 187251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Walker's Remaining Arguments

Text: Bryant disposes of Walker's remaining arguments that (1) the district court erred in instructing the jury on the element of control in the context of constructive possession, and (2) his jury venire was not representative of the community in violation of the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861. In Bryant, we held that the district court's supplemental jury charge in which it reread the original jury instruction and also recited language from three of this Court's opinions discussing control did not confuse the jury. Id. at 357. Walker raises the same argument and, similarly, it fails. In Bryant, we held that Bryant failed to show a violation of 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 under the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861. Bryant, 523 F.3d at 361-62. We reached this conclusion after finding that Bryant had failed to prove that the underrepresentation of blacks in the venire was due to a `systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process,' id. at 362 (quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979)), because both of the cases Bryant relied on concerned an alleged underrepresentation of whites, whereas this case involves an alleged underrepresentation of blacks, and Bryant relied on two cases decided more than 10 years ago, in combination with [his] own single venire. Id. Walker argues that [viewing] this case with [the cases relied on in Bryant ] it is clear that the procedure for empaneling venires in the District Court is seriously flawed [because the] failure to produce venires representing a `fair cross section of the community' is not isolated to a few cases and is not the result of case-specific factors. Br. of Appellant at 37. We rejected this argument in Bryant. 523 F.3d at 362. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Walker's section 922(g)(1) conviction. We remand Walker's section 5861(d) conviction for the district court to dismiss Count One of the superseding indictment after determining whether the dismissal should occur with or without prejudice. Id. So ordered.