Opinion ID: 2708892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal and Replacement of Juror Vega

Text: The requirements for jury service include, in relevant part, that a prospective juror be able to read, write, speak, and understand the English language and fill out the juror qualification form. 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(2), (b)(3). English language proficiency is essential for a juror to comprehend the issues presented at trial, assess the evidence, and come to an independent judgment. If a potential juror cannot meet this requirement, he should be disqualified from serving as a juror. A juror that is unable to read, write, speak, and understand English may be appropriately stricken for cause. See, e.g., United States v. De La Paz-Rentas, 613 F.3d 18, 24 (1st Cir. 2010) (upholding the constitutionality of the requirement that individuals understand and be literate in English to serve on a federal jury). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 provides for the removal and replacement of jurors “who become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties” after the trial has begun as long as the court has a reason to excuse the juror for cause and there was “some changed circumstance.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(c)(1). “It is within the trial judge’s sound discretion to remove a juror whenever the judge becomes convinced that the juror’s abilities to perform his duties become impaired.” United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 610 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Huntress, 956 F.2d 1309, 1312 (5th Cir. 1992)). This Court will not overturn the trial court’s 8 No. 12-3517 decision to dismiss a juror pursuant to Rule 24(c) unless no legitimate basis for the court’s decision can be found in the record, and the appellant shows that the juror’s dismissal prejudiced his case. United States v. Vega, 72 F.3d 507, 512 (7th Cir. 1995). In this case, the district court judge determined that Vega did not possess the requisite English language proficiency to serve as a juror without an interpreter. Because this is a legitimate basis for removing a juror, the district court did not abuse its discretion by removing and replacing Vega. Pineda argues that there was no legitimate basis for removing Vega because Vega’s proficiency in English did not change from the first day of trial to the last. While Vega’s language abilities did not change overnight, it became apparent that his ability to communicate with the other jurors and to understand the trial proceedings were inadequate. The court learned that Vega did not fill out his juror qualification form on his own, but required the assistance of a notary to translate the form for him. Vega also made a direct statement to the court that he was unable to communicate freely with the other jurors without the assistance of an interpreter. The removal was amply justified. Pineda cites United States v. Dempsey, 830 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir. 1987) to argue that Vega was qualified to remain on the jury; however, this case is distinguishable. In Dempsey, an interpreter was provided for a deaf juror throughout the duration of the trial. Id. The district court held that utilizing the interpreter for the deaf juror was “an acceptable means to accommodate [the juror’s] hearing loss.” Id. at 1088. Even No. 12-3517 9 without the assistance of an interpreter, the juror was able to competently fill out her juror qualification form, read lips, and speak for herself when communicating with the court during voir dire and with the other jurors during jury deliberations. Id. at 1086–87. Moreover, the court noted that the deaf juror was well-educated, worked in an environment that required her to understand and communicate in English, and could lip read to verify the accuracy of the interpreter’s translations. Id. Essentially, the juror could still understand trial proceedings and communicate with other jurors even if the interpreter was unavailable; the assistance of an interpreter merely enhanced the juror’s communication abilities. By contrast, Vega was unable to effectively communicate or understand trial proceedings without the assistance of an interpreter. He required an interpreter for even a basic comprehension of the trial proceedings and had great difficulty understanding and communicating with the other jurors. Pineda then cites United States v. Campbell, 544 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2008) to argue that a mistrial should have been declared after Vega’s removal from the jury. In Campbell, the district court declared a mistrial after it discovered that a juror’s limited ability to speak English precluded him from meaningfully participating in jury deliberations. Id. at 580. At the close of testimony, the judge sent the jury to deliberate. Id. The jury sent a note to the trial judge stating that one juror, Francisco Ramirez, was unable to understand what was happening and needed interpretation of the deliberations. Id. at 579. Ramirez confirmed this, stating in open court that he was unable to participate in deliberations because his limited English language abilities hindered communication with the other 10 No. 12-3517 jurors. Id. at 580. The court noted that it could appoint an interpreter for deliberations, but that it would not assuage the concerns over whether Ramirez had sufficiently understood the trial testimony and proceedings. Id. at 582. The court then suggested that Ramirez be dismissed. Id. Since the alternate jurors had already been excused, however, the jury would have to continue deliberations with only eleven jurors. Id. The defense refused this alternative. Id. The district court found that Ramirez could not “effectively communicate and participate in the jury deliberative process” and declared a mistrial. Id. A mistrial in Campbell was appropriate because the jury had begun deliberations when Ramirez’s inability to communicate came to the court’s attention. At this point, the alternate jurors had been dismissed and did not have the ability to replace Ramirez. “When facts arise before the start of deliberations that cast doubt on a juror’s ability to perform [his] duties, the district court bears discretion to excuse the juror and replace [him] with an alternate.” United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1501, 1512 (11th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). In this case, when the court discovered that Vega was unable to perform his duties, she replaced him with an alternate who had been present for the entirety of the trial. Whatever the basis for removing Vega, overturning the district court’s decision pursuant to Rule 24(c) requires Pineda to show that the removal of the juror had a prejudicial effect on his trial. Vega, 72 F.3d at 512. Pineda argues that the other jurors appeared to be “alarmed” by the removal of Vega, the sole Hispanic juror, and that the court’s explanation was insufficient in assuaging their concerns. The court and both No. 12-3517 11 parties were aware at trial that upon Vega’s removal, the other jurors wanted to know why he was excused. The court promptly addressed this issue by making the following statement to the jury: “I excused a juror who had to have an interpreter because it turns out that there really aren’t enough funds to pay interpreters, so I had no choice. Thank you.” Although this is the explanation the court provided to the jury, the lack of funding was not the court’s primary or sole reason for removing Vega from the jury. Nonetheless, the court’s comments to the jury after Vega was removed made it clear that Vega was removed because of his inability to communicate sufficiently with the other jurors in English, not because of his ethnic background. In conclusion, even if the court made a mistake by allowing Vega on the jury for the first day of trial, any mistake was harmless and effectively remedied. As soon as the court was informed that Vega could not adequately fulfill his duties as a juror, the court cured the error quickly and effectively by replacing him with an alternate juror who had been present for the duration of the trial. In sum, the district court’s decision to dismiss and replace Vega was a sound method of remedying the situation, and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.