Court Opinion

ID: 9483527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:23:07.150528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:40.378946
License: Public Domain

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part:
I do not agree with my colleagues’ assessment of what consequences flow from the discovery, after a jury trial, that the foreman of the jury happened to be a recently-convicted felon. Assuming that the juror’s civil rights have not been restored, I would reverse the convictions and require a new trial. In my view, the status of the juror as a felon plus the juror’s deception of court and counsel during voir dire demonstrates that this individual could not be trusted to conform to the court’s instructions and to discharge faithfully his duties as a juror.
I also write separately with respect to the question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a district court from calculating a defendant’s sentence for committing one drug offense in light of the quantity of drugs involved in a charge of which the defendant was acquitted. Although I agree with the result my colleagues reach, the case is close and I believe the effect of our ruling on the nullification power of the jury ought to be brought out in the open.
A. The Felon-Juror
My colleagues apparently view the felon-juror’s deceptive silence on voir dire as the source of the problem. They treat this case as if it is governed by United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 904 (D.C.Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2235, 114 L.Ed.2d 477 (1991), which held that when a juror has made a false statement on voir dire, “an aggrieved party must show that the juror’s correct response ... would have demonstrated actual bias.” North interpreted McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). In both cases, jurors had incorrectly answered a question on voir dire, in North deliberately, in McDonough inadvertently. A correct answer in each case would have revealed the possibility of actual bias, of the juror’s favoring or disfavoring one side for reasons other than the weight of the evidence.1 But “bias” is not the problem here.
Felons are disqualified from serving on juries in both criminal and civil cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(5). It is not their “bias” that disables them. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1878, excluded felons to preserve the “probity” of the jury. H.R.Rep. No. 1076, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1968).2 It *638broke no new ground in doing so. The ancient Greeks barred criminals termed “infamous” from serving on juries. Special Project, supra note 2, 23 Vand.L.Rev. at 941 n. 1. Blackstone cites Coke’s Institutes for the proposition that a felon may not serve on a jury. 3 W. Blackstone, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 361-63; see also 4 W. Blaokstone, supra, at 352. At common law, felons were barred from American juries, and most states now have statutes to this effect, though many (like section 1865) provide that a felon may serve if he has been rehabilitated formally into society. Special Project, supra, 23 Vand.L.Rev. at 1054. Though the exact reasons for this ancient disability are not crystal clear, none of the proposed explanations involve “bias.” Id. at 941-50, 1051. Rather, they have ranged from the idea that a criminal has “declared war upon the community,” id. at 942, and so should be cast out of it as punishment, to the dubious notion that adding this particular bar to the broad array of other post-incarceration sanctions would increase deterrence of crime, id. at 944-45. Felons’ exclusion from juries may also have developed from an earlier exclusion of felons as witnesses, id. at 1051, a practice that continues in milder form to this day. See Fed.R.Evid. 609. As Aristotle saw it, to serve on a jury was to hold public office; the capacity to do so was constitutive of being a citizen. POLITICS, Bk. Ill 1275a.
Where all this should lead today is not altogether certain. The defendants think the congressional determination of unfitness conclusively establishes that the presence of a disqualified felon denies them the “impartial jury” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The government objects that section 1865 has no bearing here because Boney and Holloman failed to comply with the time limits set forth in section 1867(a). This requires a criminal defendant to raise alleged violations of the Act “before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after [he] discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier....” 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a).3 Neither side has it exactly right.
The extent to which the “jury” requirement of the Sixth Amendment (and Article III) immutably incorporates the common-law bar to service by a felon is unclear. United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 57 S.Ct. 177, 81 L.Ed. 78 (1936), stands for the *639proposition that though the “settled rule[s] of the common law,” id. at 141, 57 S.Ct. at 183, may have been “embedded in the Sixth Amendment,” id. at 137, 57 S.Ct. at 183, congressional implementation or modification of those rules should be respected by the courts. Id. at 142-43, 57 S.Ct. at 183-84. I would therefore reject the defendants’ argument that the Sixth Amendment itself bars felons from serving on juries and requires reversal per se where one slips through. What federal law, informed by historical practice and Congress’ enactment on the subject may require, is a different question.
As to the government’s objection, the time limits of section 1867(a) cannot be read to allow a felon, barred under section 1865(b)(5), to sit on a jury whenever no one objects prior to the start of voir dire. Those time limits did not revoke a litigant’s time-honored right to challenge a prospective juror for cause. No one would suppose that upon the discovery of a felon on voir dire the court could not exclude him because the time for doing so had passed. 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 383 (1982). Another provision of the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c)(4), expressly confirms the court’s power to strike venire members “upon a challenge by any party for good cause shown.” The Act imposes no time limits on the exercise of this authority, an authority derived from the inherent power of the federal courts to provide for the conduct of their criminal trials, and a source of protections in excess of those required by the Constitution. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 797-98, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2034-35, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975); Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 313, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 (1959); see also United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995-96 (3d Cir.1980). The inquiry into how that power ought to be exercised in response to a particular challenge is properly guided by the policies and practices underlying and incorporated in the Sixth Amendment, as well as those underlying the basic juror qualifications adopted by Congress in section 1865. Cf. United States v. Olano, 934 F.2d 1425, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1991), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1935, 118 L.Ed.2d 542 (1992).
There is no reason to suppose that the time limits of section 1867 were meant to work a wholesale (and absurd) limitation of that power. Nothing magical happens at the moment voir dire begins. A felon’s character is not suddenly altered, a juror completely unfamiliar with the English language does not suddenly become fluent. At any rate, the Jury Selection and Service Act primarily concerns how prospective jurors are selected; its purpose was to ensure that venires reflect a “fair cross section of the community,” 28 U.S.C. § 1861, by replacing the old “key man” system of selection with a more neutral methodology. S.Rep. No. 891, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 9-12 (1967). Challenges to the way in which the venire was chosen are unlikely to be aided by any information gained by individually examining prospective jurors. The qualifications set out in section 1865 are a different matter. Whether a juror is unable to speak English, section 1865(b)(3); is under the age of 18, section 1865(b)(1); is physically or mentally infirm, section 1865(b)(4); or is a convicted felon, section 1865(b)(5), are all susceptible to detection upon questioning of the individual. Congress also supposed that trial judges retained the power to exclude section 1865(b)-unquali-fied jurors by “checkpng] in court whether the qualification determinations made up to that point were valid,” and eliminated as “redundant” a section so providing in the bill leading to the Act. S.Rep. No. 891, supra, at 32 n. 33. Congress thought “that power [was] not limited by any time requirement.” Id.
The time limits of section 1867(a) thus do not absolutely preclude a challenge, based on the fact that the panel contained an individual disqualified by section 1865(b), just because that challenge was made after the start of voir dire. This comports with the longstanding practice of replacing an original juror with an alternate during the trial when the original juror is determined to be unqualified. See, e.g., United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360, 365 (2d Cir.) (L. Hand, J.), cert. denied, 333 U.S. 860, 68 *640S.Ct. 738, 92 L.Ed. 1139 (1948). See Fed. R.Crim.P. 24(c). It is also assumed by Rule 23, which allows a court “to excuse a juror for just cause after the jury has retired to consider its verdict,” and which provides that “a valid verdict may be returned by the remaining 11 jurors.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(b). If a disqualified juror is impanelled in spite of the parties’ diligent efforts,4 the trial judge is not thereby deprived of the power to take corrective action when the relevant facts come to light.
I therefore move on to the defendants’ argument for vacating their convictions. Supreme Court precedent of old vintage, cited by neither side, seems to point against their position. In Raub v. Carpenter, 187 U.S. 159, 23 S.Ct. 72, 47 L.Ed. 119 (1902), a civil case, a juror stated on voir dire that he was over twenty-one and had not been convicted of any crime. Both statements proved to be false. The Court determined, however, that the verdict was the only one that “could be rendered consistently with the facts”; the presence of the felon-juror therefore could not have prejudiced the appellants. 187 U.S. at 163, 23 S.Ct. at 73. The Court then addressed the contention that the judgment was a nullity for want of power to enter it. Citing Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293, 302, 16 S.Ct. 304, 307, 40 L.Ed. 432 (1895), which held that a verdict was not “void” though rendered by a jury including an alien subject to challenge propter defectum, Raub stated that the judgment below was “not ... absolutely void,” 187 U.S. at 164, 23 S.Ct. at 74. (Kohl had presented — on habe-as — the question whether a New Jersey statute was contrary to the New Jersey Constitution. The Court noted either the New Jersey courts had concluded otherwise, or they had not been asked, and declined to hold that application of the state statute, in light of provisions of the state constitution, violated federal due process or equal protection. 160 U.S. at 302-03, 16 S.Ct. at 307.) Raub rested on the fact that, since a directed verdict could have been entered, the plaintiff could not possibly have been prejudiced by the juror’s presence. The premise does not hold in this case, see Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 105-06, 15 S.Ct. 273, 294-95, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895), so the conclusion need not control. Two courts have nevertheless read Raub and Kohl as requiring a showing of actual bias or actual prejudice to the defendant before a new trial may be granted. United States v. Currie, 609 F.2d 1193, 1194 (6th Cir.1979); Ford v. United States, 201 F.2d 300, 301 (5th Cir.1953).
A middle ground, one suggested by North, is to remand for a hearing on the prejudicial effect of the felon-juror’s presence. This is my colleagues’ solution. The difficulty is that the hearing, if it got off the ground, would go but a short distance. What would be the nature of the inquiry? Whether the felon actually was able to render adequate service as a juror? Apart from the felon himself, who could be called' as a witness? Not the other jurors. Rule 606(b), Fed.R.Evid., forbids jurors from testifying about their deliberations. The rule also would foreclose such questioning of the felon-juror. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 120-27, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2747-51, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987). Perhaps he could be asked whether he honored his oath, followed the judge’s instructions and executed faithfully his responsibilities. Suppose he answered in the affirmative. Why should he be believed? He already *641lied once about his status, and his position as a felon itself throws doubt on his veracity. That is why the rules allow witnesses to be impeached by their prior convictions. Fed.R.Evid. 609. Perhaps the hearing could focus on why he deceived the court by not disclosing his status as a felon. But if he were represented, as he probably should be in view of 18 U.S.C. §§ 401,1621, his counsel would likely advise him not to answer at all. See, e.g., United States v. Vargas, 606 F.2d 341, 344 (1st Cir.1979). If he did respond, his answers would still suffer from a lack of trustworthiness.
What I have just written should not be taken to pertain to post-verdict inquiries into a juror’s actual bias. As I have said, North approved such inquiries, and rejected Judge Winter’s view for the Second Circuit that a juror’s intentional nondisclosure on voir dire requires the conviction to be vacated if a truthful answer would have revealed a “view on the merits” that might have led to the juror’s being struck either peremptorily or for actual bias. Compare North, 910 F.2d at 904-05, with United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149, 151 (2d Cir.1989). A felon’s exclusion is not for bias, so neither case speaks to the situation here.
“Technically a juror who fails to meet the statutory qualifications is subject to challenge ‘for cause ’ while a juror who is biased is subject to challenge ‘for favor.’ ” 2 C. Wright, supra, at 361 (emphasis added). Though Professor Wright states that the “distinction [is] lost on the present generation of lawyers,” id., I would revive it here. A judge confronted with a challenge “for favor” must first determine which type of bias challenge he is facing: a challenge for “actual bias,” or one for “implied bias.” The former is “bias in fact,” the latter is “conclusively presumed as a matter of law.” Wood, 299 U.S. at 133, 57 S.Ct. at 179. If the challenge is for actual bias, the trial judge must then determine whether the juror would in fact be unlikely to render impartial service. This is easy when the juror has admitted bias for or against a party, or has acknowledged some other reason why he would find it difficult to “render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639,1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). A closer question arises when a juror professes ability to render fair service but doubts nonetheless remain. Compare Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), with Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728, 81 S.Ct. at 1645. Then the judge must look, so the cases indicate, at the facts giving rise to the inference and determine whether the juror can or “cannot realistically be expected to be impartial.” 2 C. Wright, supra, at 363. This process can be duplicated in a post-trial hearing: facts that would have come to light following a correct answer on voir dire can be developed, inferences from them drawn, and the possible existence and strength of the juror’s bias determined.' The district court then can make a judgment about whether a challenge for actual bias would have been made, and if so, granted. See, e.g., United States v. North, 716 F.Supp. 652, 655-56 (D.D.C.1989); cf. W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 24.6, at 1046 (2d ed. 1992). The facts of North, like the facts of McDonough, presented a question of “actual bias,” not the more “exceptional circumstance[ ]” in which “the facts are such that bias is to be inferred.” North, 910 F.2d at 904, quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57, 104 S.Ct. at 850 (Blackmun, J., joined by Stevens & O’Con-nor, JJ., concurring). North’s requirement of a “showing of actual bias,” 910 F.2d at 905, would of course necessarily already be met when the facts constituted grounds for a challenge for implied bias.
When concealment has frustrated a challenge “for cause,” however, a post-trial inquiry into actual bias lacks purpose, and in no way replicates what ideally would have happened before trial. In this respect it is similar to a challenge for implied bias, which leads to the per sé exclusion of the veniremember. If a felon correctly completes the juror qualification form, he is not even summoned for jury duty. See Modified Plan for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors (As Amended Through August 15, *6421991), §§ E & F, at 4. If he slips through at that stage but is discovered before trial, presumably he is excluded without further ado, 2 C. Wright, supra, § 383, not because of an inference, arising out of the identities of the parties and other circumstances of a particular case, that he will be biased for one side or against the other, but rather because Congress determined that he ought not sit on any jury, determine the fate of any party, under any circumstances, in any case. That judgment reflects concern about maintaining the integrity of the jury, cf. section 1866(c)(5); H.R.Rep. No. 1076, supra, at 6, and with it, public confidence in verdicts. As Justice Kennedy recently put it, “[t]he purpose of the jury system is to impress upon the criminal defendant and the community as a whole that a verdict of conviction or acquittal is given in accordance with the law by persons who are fair.” Powers v. Ohio, — U.S.-,-, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1372, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (emphasis added). Congress, I believe, adopted what is no doubt the traditional view — reflected elsewhere in our law, see, e.g., Fed.R.Evid. 609(a), (c) — that felons are generally less trustworthy and responsible than others, and that they just cannot be counted on to be “fair.”
This bar is not absolute. It applies only to felons whose “civil rights have not been restored,” 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(5) (a determination made by each state), and thereby preserves some state influence on who may sit on federal juries. The District of Columbia does not appear to have a formal procedure for the restoration of a felon’s civil rights, see Williams v. United States, 421 A.2d 19 (D.C.App.1980). A felon may serve upon a jury in the District of Columbia courts when one year has passed since the completion of his “incarceration, probation, or parole,” and when he has been certified pursuant to the District’s jury system plan. D.C.Code Ann. § 11-1906(b)(2)(B). That a felon could be incompetent to serve on a jury one month but competent the next, or could be incompetent in a federal court in one state but competent in another, makes the ban seem somewhat arbitrary. But that is the necessary consequence of two determinations Congress made, and under Wood is allowed to make, 299 U.S. at 141, 57 S.Ct. at 183, in writing the statute: that a felon is, at some point, sufficiently rehabilitated to have his civil rights restored, and that the fixing of that point should be left to the states. But cf. Fed.R.Evid. 609(c) & advisory committee’s note thereto. It is not a justification for us, once the rule has been broken, to throw up our hands and walk away.
Nor can it be said that a felon inevitably must be biased for the defendant and against the prosecution, so that in criminal cases, involving guilty verdicts, no difficulty is presented. First, I am disinclined to interpret a statute based on suppositions about felon psychology. Second, were I to indulge in such hypothesizing, I might see at least two reasons why a felon could be prejudiced towards a guilty verdict. He may have developed a callous cynicism about protestations of innocence, having no doubt heard many such laments while incarcerated. Or his desire to show others— and himself — that he is now a good citizen might lead him to display an excess of rectitude, both in his deliberations and in his vote. Given the constraints on what evidence can be developed at a post-trial hearing, see supra p. 640, a defendant is unlikely ever to be able to show how the felon-juror reached his conclusions, or how he may have influenced the other jurors. And unlike cases involving bias, there are no facts extrinsic to the jury’s deliberations (other than the felon’s status under section 1865(b)(5)) that are likely to reveal whether the reasons underlying the exclusion were implicated in a particular case.
That a felon has been unwilling to conform his conduct raises doubts about his capacity to honor the juror’s oath, and to comply with the trial judge’s instructions. These concerns intensify when, as occurred here, the felon deceives court and counsel about his status on voir dire. Such a person simply cannot be trusted to perform faithfully the solemn duty of sitting in judgment of others.
The reasons underlying the exclusion of felons from juries and the limitations on what evidence may be received mean that “[ejfforts to prove or disprove ... preju*643dice from the record before us would be futile, and guesses whether the outcome of the trial might have been different ... purely speculative.” Riggins v. Nevada, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1810, 1816, 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992). I would therefore decline to join Ford, 201 F.2d at 301, and Currie, 609 F.2d at 1194, in reading Raub and Kohl as requiring a defendant to show actual bias or prejudice in these circumstances.5 In the bias context, the impanell-ing of a juror properly challenged for implied bias is reversible error. See, e.g., Gladhill v. General Motors Corp., 743 F.2d 1049, 1050-51 (4th Cir.1984), so holding because the challenged juror held stock in the defendant corporation. Cf Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), in which six justices voted to reverse a conviction based on a verdict rendered by a jury that was “illegal in its composition,” id. at 501, 92 S.Ct. at 2168 (Marshall, Douglas & Stewart, JJ., concurring), over a dissent strongly arguing that the defendant had in no way been prejudiced by the illegality. Id. at 507, 92 S.Ct. at 2170 (Burger, C.J., joined by Blackmun & Rehnquist, JJ., dissenting).
Rule 33 gives the district court the power to grant a motion for new trial “in the interest of justice,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, and the Supreme Court has noted that such post-verdict inquiries are proper so long as they are conducted within the strictures imposed by Fed.R.Evid. 606. Tanner, 483 U.S. at 127, 107 S.Ct. at 2751. The above discussion establishes that it would be error not to exclude a felon challenged for cause at voir dire. When the right to bring that challenge was not relinquished but rather abrogated by the felon’s concealment, a new trial should be granted. I express no opinion on the possibly related subject of post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, other than to note that the scope of such proceedings is obviously narrower than direct appeal, and that the “cause and prejudice” standard applicable in § 2255 actions does not allow relief from a non-constitutional flaw “unless the claimed error constituted ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.’ ” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184-85, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2240, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979), quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 471, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). I would hold only that when a felon, excludable under 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c)(4) pursuant to the determination made by Congress in enacting section 1865(b)(5), has concealed his status on voir dire and served on a jury in a criminal case, the verdict must be vacated when the error is discovered before entry of judgment. The remand to the district court should be for a hearing limited to the question whether the juror was, in fact, covered by the terms of section 1865.6
B. Sentencing on the Basis of Acquitted Conduct
The jury convicted Holloman of distributing cocaine base — the .199 grams sold to *644the undercover officer. Calculating Hollo-man’s offense level in light of the .199 grams alone would, under the Sentencing Guidelines, fix his term of imprisonment at 10-16 months. The court computed his sentence differently. Although the jury acquitted Holloman of the possession-with-intent-to-distribute count, which dealt with the 12.72 grams of cocaine base Boney threw under the truck, the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Holloman possessed that cocaine too, and treated it as “relevant conduct” under § IB 1.3(a)(2) of the Guidelines. (Holloman does not contest the factual accuracy of the district court’s findings.) The district court therefore added the cocaine involved in the distribution and possession counts — a total of 12.92 grams — to determine Holloman’s offense level. This increased the sentencing range to 63-78 months. The court sentenced Holloman to 63 months. Hollo-man understandably complains that, despite being acquitted of the possession charge, his sentence was no less than if he had been convicted. As he sees it, the Guidelines do not permit this; but if they do, they violate the Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.7 The government tells us that other courts of appeals have approved what occurred here.
In determining the base offense level, the Guidelines instruct the sentencing court to take into account “relevant conduct,” which for drug offenses means “all ... acts ... that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(2). The application notes to this section indicate that the Commission meant to include acts for which the defendant had not been convicted. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 application note 2; background commentary ¶ 3. The weight of drugs involved in uncharged criminal conduct and in conduct underlying dismissed counts may therefore be added to the amount of drugs involved in the charge on which the defendant was found guilty. United States v. Salmon, 948 F.2d 776 (D.C.Cir.1991); see also United States v. Chaikin, 960 F.2d 171, 174 (D.C.Cir.1992); 1990 United States Sentencing Commission Annual Report 9, citing cases. The Guidelines do not specifically mention acts underlying counts on which a defendant has been acquitted. But the language of Guideline § 1B1.3(a)(2), particularly the “all,” is certainly broad enough to comprehend such acts. Sentencing judges generally are not restricted in the kind of information they may take into account. “No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person ... for the purpose of imposing sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3661.
When it comes to sentencing under the Guidelines, all circuits agree that the government may prove relevant conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Burke, 888 F.2d 862, 869 (D.C.Cir.1989); 1990 United States Sentencing Commission Annual Report 9. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2418-19, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986), holds that this standard of proof at sentencing satisfies due process. A not guilty verdict establishes only that the government has not proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not rule out the possibility that, more likely than not, the defendant engaged in the conduct. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938); United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984); see also Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990). As my colleagues point out, this difference between the standard of proof at trial and sentencing has moved ten courts of appeals to conclude that under the Guidelines, sentencing judges may consider “misconduct despite the defendant’s acquittal on charges arising out of that misconduct.” United States v. Fonner, 920 F.2d 1330, *6451333 (7th Cir.1990). See, in addition to Fonner, United States v. Coleman, 947 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1590, 118 L.Ed.2d 307 (1992); United States v. Rivera-Lopez, 928 F.2d 372 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam); United States v. Duncan, 918 F.2d 647 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 F.2d 177 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Dawn, 897 F.2d 1444 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Mocciola, 891 F.2d 13 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Isom, 886 F.2d 736 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Ryan, 866 F.2d 604 (3d Cir.1989); United States v. Juarez-Ortega, 866 F.2d 747 (5th Cir.1989). Six of these cases sustained enhancements to a sentence. Five of the six involved 2-level enhancements, pursuant to Guideline § 2D1.1, for possession of a firearm during an offense. Coleman, 947 F.2d at 1428-29; Duncan, 918 F.2d at 652; Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 F.2d at 180-81; Dawn, 897 F.2d at 1449-50; Mocciola, 891 F.2d at 16-17. The defendants in each case had been acquitted of using a firearm in connection with a drug offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See, e.g., Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 F.2d at 179. The sixth case, Isom, upheld a 6-level enhancement (pursuant to Guideline § 2B5.1(b)(2) for operating a printing press) for a defendant convicted of dealing with counterfeit obligations, 18 U.S.C. § 473, after he had been acquitted on a charge of counterfeiting, 18 U.S.C. § 371. 886 F.2d at 737, 739. Of the four remaining cases, two involved upward departures, Ryan, 866 F.2d at 608-09; Fonner, 920 F.2d at 1332. One of the others — like this case — involved aggregation of a separate quantity of cocaine charged in a count on which the jury returned a not guilty verdict. Rivera-Lopez, 928 F.2d 372. One did not specify which situation it faced. Juarez-Ortega, 866 F.2d at 748-49. The one court of appeals to break with this pattern, United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 851 (9th Cir.1991), did so over a dissent by Chief Judge Wallace, id. at 855, and did not articulate any constitutionally-compelled reason for doing so. Id. at 852 n. 14. But see United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.Supp. 12, 13-14 (D.D.C. 1990), aff'd, 946 F.2d 127 (D.C.Cir.1991) (table).
This widespread practice under the Guidelines comports generally with the system prevailing prior to the Guidelines. Judges in pre-Guidelines cases had “very broad discretion” to impose any sentence “within the statutory limits,” and “could properly refer to ... evidence introduced with respect to crimes of which [a] defendant was acquitted.” United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181, 183-84 (2d Cir.1972). See United States v. Funt, 896 F.2d 1288, 1300 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Bernard, 757 F.2d 1439, 1444 (4th Cir.1985); United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Warden, 622 F.2d 60 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871, 101 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed.2d 91 (1980); United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1175-76 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Cardi, 519 F.2d 309, 314 (7th Cir.1975); United States v. Atkins, 480 F.2d 1223, 1224 (9th Cir.1973). This circuit had reached a similar result in at least one case, though it declined to adopt and follow Sweig to its ultimate limits. United States v. Campbell, 684 F.2d 141, 154 (D.C.Cir.1982). Reviewing courts believed that a judge inevitably would be influenced by evidence he has heard already anyway. It seemed a better practice not to reverse a judge so influenced for candidly disclosing the reasons for the sentence. Pre-Guide-lines courts also relied on the different standard of proof applicable at sentencing.
Although the Guidelines hedged in the courts’ discretion to impose particular sentences, the Guidelines were intended to continue the practice of permitting sentencing courts to consider a wide array of information, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3661.8 Still, the statute creating the substantive offense of conviction sets the outer limit of permissible punishment. *646U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1. See United States v. Ryan, 866 F.2d at 609; United States v. Mocciola, 891 F.2d at 16. But cf United States v. R.L.C., — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1329, 117 L.Ed.2d 559 (1992). In this case, Holloman faced a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment for the distribution count on which he was convicted. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). If this were a pre-Guidelines case, the sentencing court could have chosen the appropriate sentence by considering Holloman’s conduct underlying the possession count even though the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. With the Guidelines in place the difference is that the sentencing court must consider such conduct if proved by a preponderance of evidence, and must render a sentence within the range made applicable by the inclusion of that conduct, unless there is reason for a departure. To this extent, the effect of the Guidelines as I interpret them is the same as that described in McMillan: the statute there did not create “a separate offense calling for a separate penalty; it operate[d] solely to limit the ... court’s discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it,” 477 U.S. at 84-87, 88, 106 S.Ct. at 2415-16, 2417.
Holloman argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause complicates the picture. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), extended the principle of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), that the Double Jeopardy Clause “protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal.” Finding a collateral estoppel component in the Double Jeopardy Clause, Ashe held that the Constitution prohibited a second prosecution for a different offense if the government would have to offer proof on an issue regarding which the jury in the first prosecution “grounded its verdict” of not guilty. 397 U.S. at 444, 90 S.Ct. at 1194 (internal quotation omitted). In this case the district court told the jury that the elements of the possession-with-intent-to-distribute offense were knowing possession of some type of controlled substance, quantity,9 and a specific intent to distribute. 5/9/90 Tr. at 93-95. The court also instructed on both constructive possession and joint possession. Id. at 94. By convicting Boney on this count (but not Holloman), the jury demonstrated its belief that the stash found under the truck was of the necessary quantity and was not for personal use. “The jury could [not] rationally have found” that this stash of 12.72 grams of cocaine base was not for Boney’s personal use but was for Holloman’s. 397 U.S. at 445, 90 S.Ct. at 1195. Thus, if the verdict on this count was dictated at all by the evidence in the case, it could only have rested on a conclusion that Holloman did not possess the “stash.” 10 Were the government to try Holloman tomorrow for any offense which included as an element possession of the stash, Ashe would bar its way. Holloman says that considering his possession of the stash as “relevant conduct” amounts to punishing him for something for which he was acquitted, which, he asserts, Ashe prohibits.
In light of the overwhelming agreement of the courts of appeals before and after the Guidelines, and the absence of any contrary indication from the Supreme Court, I agree that § 1B1.3(a)(2) of the Guidelines is not unconstitutional when applied in this manner. Holloman’s argument entails the minor premise that a defendant may be punished only for conduct of which the defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If “punishment” means “plays any role in the setting of a sentence,” McMillan puts the argument to rest — it allows sentences to be adjusted based on facts not proven at trial. 477 U.S. at 91-92, 106 S.Ct. at 2418-19. The distinction seems to be that the defendant is not being sentenced for the acquitted *647conduct. Rather, the constitutionally-permissible sentencing range is set by the statute defining the offense of which the defendant was convicted, while the actual sentence within that range is determined in part by reference to other information establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant’s involvement in other relevant conduct.
I recognize that this conceptual nicety might be lost on a person who, like Hollo-man, breathes a sigh of relief when the not guilty verdict is announced without realizing that his term of imprisonment may nevertheless be “increased” if, at sentencing, the court finds him responsible for the same misconduct. That the Double Jeopardy Clause protects him from reprosecution on the acquitted count, or that his acquittal means that his maximum potential sentence will be determined solely on the basis of the count on which he was convicted is doubtless of little comfort. My analysis, and my colleagues’, also rests somewhat uneasily with the “special weight” the Supreme Court has accorded acquittals in its Double Jeopardy jurisprudence. See United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 129-30, 101 S.Ct. 426, 433, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980), collecting cases; see also Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 173, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874). If, as one commentator has suggested, and as the Court has indicated, DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. at 130 n. 11, 101 S.Ct. at 433 n. 11, not guilty verdicts are given this special weight out of respect for the jury’s prerogative to acquit in the teeth of overwhelming evidence of guilt, Westen, The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences, 78 Mioh.L.Rev. 1001, 1012-18 (1980); Westen & Drubel, Toward A General Theory of Double Jeopardy, 1978 Sup.Ct.Rev. 81, 122-31, then the Guidelines’ formalizing the potential use of acquitted conduct in sentencing may have worked a significant erosion of the jury’s dispensing power. On the other hand, the Court seems to have indicated that when an aspect of a verdict speaks only to the sentence a defendant may receive, and leaves open the question of guilt, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not limit the sentencing range available at a subsequent trial. Cichos v. Indiana, 385 U.S. 76, 87 S.Ct. 271, 17 L.Ed.2d 175 (1966); see also Westen, supra, 78 Mioh.L.Rev. at 1021-22 & n. 66.
At any rate, I cannot disregard the Court’s decision in McMillan, its broader implications, and the accumulated weight of twenty years’ decisions from our sister circuits. The Guidelines clearly require, and McMillan clearly allows, sentencing courts to take account of uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence. To bar the sentencing court from considering acquitted conduct that also can be so proven would be anomalous. The Supreme Court has never held, indeed so far as I am aware no appellate court has ever held, that the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids sentencing courts from looking at conduct underlying an offense on which the defendant was acquitted. The hard logic of the differing-burdens-of-proof analysis has been accepted by the Supreme Court in other contexts, as well as by ten other courts of appeals in this context. See supra p. 645. I agree that we should not reject it today, and so join the majority’s holding that the use of conduct underlying an acquitted count as “relevant conduct” under § lB1.3(a)(2) for purposes of sentencing does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

. McDonough was a civil action for damages arising from an allegedly defective product. Counsel had asked the prospective jurors whether they or any member of their family had ever been "seriously injured” by a defective product. One juror had remained silent even though his son’s leg had been broken when a tire exploded. It later turned out he did not consider the broken leg a "serious" injury. In North, a criminal case, one juror did not speak up when the court asked the jury panel if they or any members of their families had ever been convicted of a crime, though one of this juror’s brothers had been convicted.

. Section 1865 provides in pertinent part that:
(a) The chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, on his initiative or upon recommendation of the clerk or jury commission, shall determine solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form and other competent evidence whether a person is unqualified for ... jury service.
(b) In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand or petit juries in the district court unless he—
(1) is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district;
(2) is unable to read, write, and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the juror qualification form;
(3) is unable to speak the English language;
(4) is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service; or
*638(5) has a charge pending against him for the commission of, or has been convicted in a State or Federal court of record of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and his civil rights have not been restored.
The exclusions have been thus enumerated since 1948. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, 952. Prior to that time, the qualifications for a juror in federal court were those for a juror in the highest court of the state in which the federal court sat. See H.R.Rep. No. 1652, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 & n. 4 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5477, 5478 n. 4; see abo § 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat, 73, 88. Though I have not undertaken a survey, it is probable that felons were excluded from jury service in all of those courts. Cf. Special Project, The Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction, 23 Vand.L.Rev. 929, 1051 (1970).

. The government also claims the defendants waived their argument because, in their motion for a new trial on the basis of the felon-juror, they did not specifically cite § 1865 to the district court. I think the issue was preserved. Though defendants did not cite § 1865, they certainly made clear the basis of their objection. The proposition that felons should be excluded from juries is not a novel one, and could not have come as a surprise to the district court. The government itself cited § 1865, invoking and relying on cases from other circuits discussing the provision. Government’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial at 4-5 & n. 2 (filed Aug. 15, 1990). The district court therefore had the statute before it, and we may properly consider it. Cf. Duignan v. United States, 274 U.S. 195, 200, 47 S.Ct. 566, 568, 71 L.Ed. 996 (1927).
An additional consideration impels this course. To hold the statute “waived” would lead directly to defendants’ constitutional argument. "If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality ... unless such adjudication is unavoidable.” Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944), quoted in Jean v. Nebon, 472 U.S. 846, 854, 105 S.Ct. 2992, 2997, 86 L.Ed.2d 664 (1985); see also Rescue Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 549, 570-75, 67 S.Ct. 1409, 1420-23, 91 L.Ed. 1666 (1947); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring).

. Diligence distinguishes this case from United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554 (1st Cir.1989), relied on by the government. There, the felon who eventually made it onto the jury had disclosed his status on a juror qualification form, which, although available to the defendants under a local rule, was not examined by them until after the verdict was in. Id. at 561. While the Uribe court wrote broadly, to cover situations where the juror's status was "unknowable,” the decisional facts did not present that circumstance. Unlike Uribe, the juror here acted deceptively, concealing his status on voir dire; the government does not suggest anything defendants reasonably should have done to uncover this deception before the verdict. This case differs from Uribe in another significant respect. When it comes to capacity for conforming to law, felons are in a suspect class. If a particular felon-juror practices deception on voir dire (which the juror in Uribe did not), the suspicion concerning felons as a class is confirmed with respect to that particular individual.

. The state courts are split on the issue. Compare Beasley v. State, 39 Ala.App. 182, 96 So.2d 693 (1957); Tweedle v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. 200, 218 S.W.2d 846 (1949); State v. Hermann, 283 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.1955); State v. Benson, 235 Or. 291, 384 P.2d 208 (1963); with State v. Ortega, 77 N.M. 312, 422 P.2d 353 (1966). See generally Firestone v. Freiling, 22 Ohio Op.2d 356, 188 N.E.2d 91 (Ct.C.P.1963); Stagg v. Stagg, 96 Mont. 573, 32 P.2d 856 (1934); Ex parte Bronson, 158 Tex.Crim. 133, 254 S.W.2d 117 (1953).

. The government in its Brief protests that there is no evidence that the juror’s civil rights had not been restored. Brief for Appellee at 22. Though the formulation strikes me as somewhat inverted, the district court could address the issue on remand. As noted supra p. 642, the District of Columbia does not seem to have a formal procedure for the restoration of a felon's civil rights. The Fourth Circuit has concluded that some "affirmative act” is required in order for civil rights to be restored within the meaning of § 1865(b)(5). United States v. Hefner, 842 F.2d 731, 732 (4th Cir.1988). I doubt the present case would present an occasion to resolve the question. The juror here was convicted on February 25, 1985, and sentenced to one year in jail with five years’ probation. His probation therefore would not have expired until February 25, 1991 (or at the earliest February 25, 1990, if it ran concurrently). As noted supra p. 642, the D.C. jury statute renders the felon ineligible until one year after that date (February 25, 1992, or February 25, 1991). Defendants' trial was held in May of 1990, so this juror apparently would not have qualified under the D.C. statute, even if that were sufficient to satisfy the federal requirement.

. I read Holloman's reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, by its terms not applicable to federal criminal trials, as an inelegant reference to the demands of Due Process which do apply to such cases. U.S. Const. Amend. V.

. Which reads:
No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence. That section recodified 18 U.S.C. § 3577, enacted in 1970. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 background.

. This court has since made clear that the quantity of the drugs involved is relevant only to sentencing and is not an issue for the jury. United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991, 996 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1992). That does not resolve this case, for the dispute here is over which quantity of drugs Holloman may be sentenced for {i.e., only the drugs he sold or also the drugs Boney held), not over weight.

. The district court judge did not agree with that verdict. 11/21/90 Tr. at 12-13.