Court Opinion

ID: 2964236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:36.413331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.115427
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 18, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1123

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                             MOJISOLA A. BIODUN ADEKOYA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Robert M. Greenspan, for appellant.
            ___________________
            Paula J.  DeGiacomo, Assistant United  States Attorney, with  whom
            ___________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant  Mojisola Biodun
                      ___________

            Adekoya,  a Nigerian woman  traveling from Nigeria  by way of

            Switzerland  to  the United  States,  was  arrested at  Logan

            Airport  in  Boston  on  October  10,  1993  after  a customs

            inspection of  her baggage revealed two  kilograms of heroin.

            Following  a  three-day  jury  trial, she  was  convicted  of

            importation  and   possession  of   heroin  with   intent  to

            distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.    952(a) and 841(a)(1)

            and  18 U.S.C.     2.   Adekoya  challenges her  convictions,

            claiming   the   district   court   inadequately   questioned

            prospective jurors about possible race- and nationality-based

            bias,  denied  her  the  right   to  be  present  during  the

            questioning  of   certain  jurors,   and  failed   to  define

            "reasonable doubt" in the instructions  to the jury.  Finding

            that the court did not commit reversible error, we affirm.

                      Adekoya argues that the district court  should have

            included  among  the  questions   it  asked  the  venire  the

            following question proposed by  defense counsel:  whether any

            prospective  juror  had  "any   fixed  opinions,  biases   or

            prejudices about Black people which would affect your ability

            to render a  fair and  impartial verdict in  this case  based

            solely  on the  law  and evidence  in  this case?"    Defense

            counsel suggested  this question  in writing along  with more

            than  twenty others  on  the day  trial commenced,  but never

            thereafter requested that  the court ask  it, even after  the

                                         -2-
                                          2

            court had questioned the jurors more generally about possible

            bias.1    Nor  did  the  defendant  raise  the  argument  she

            advances  now,  that,  had  her  race-specific  question been

            asked, other  questions might have followed  which would have

            allowed her to probe bias stemming from the fact that she was

            a Nigerian national  -- a  fact that, rather  than her  race,

            forms the  basis for  her argument on  appeal.    Such  bias,

            defendant  says,  could  have  stemmed  from  panel  members'

            awareness of  a few court  opinions, unrelated to  this case,

            which refer to  Nigeria as  a drug source  country.   Because

            defendant  did  not properly  preserve  an  objection to  the

            district court's questioning, we review for plain error only.

            See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
            ___ _____________    _____

                      Generally,   a   trial   court   has   considerable

            discretion  in conducting voir dire and  "need not pursue any

            specific line of questioning  . . . provided it  is probative

            on the issue of  impartiality."  United States v.  Brown, 938
                                             _____________     _____

            F.2d  1482,  1485  (1st Cir.),  cert.  denied,  502  U.S. 992
                                            _____________

            (1991); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(a) (a court conducting voir
                    ________

                                
            ____________________

            1.   The district court asked the venire in open court:
                      Are any of  you sensible of  any bias or  prejudice
                      whatsoever with respect  to this case?   When I say
                      are you sensible of it I mean are you aware of any,
                      do you know of any?  Do you know of  any reason why
                      you  do not stand indifferent in this case?  When I
                      say stand indifferent, I'm trying to search out any
                      feelings  about these people  or me, because you've
                      met us, feelings about the criminal justice system,
                      feelings about these particular charges.

                                         -3-
                                          3

            dire  shall  permit  the   defendant  or  the  attorneys  "to

            supplement  the examination  by  such further  inquiry as  it
                                                                   ______

            deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors
            ____________

            such additional  questions by the parties  or their attorneys

            as it  deems proper[]") (emphasis supplied); Rosales-Lopez v.
            ___________________                          _____________

            United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189 (1981) (plurality)  (as voir
            _____________

            dire  examinations   "rely  largely   on  .  .   .  immediate

            perceptions,   federal  judges   have  been   accorded  ample

            discretion  in  determining  how  best to  conduct  the  voir
                                                                     ____

            dire[]").
            ____

                      When the circumstances  of the trial  indicate that

            racial  or  ethnic  prejudice   is  likely,  however,  it  is

            advisable for the court to question jurors on such bias.  See
                                                                      ___

            Brown,  938 F.2d at 1485  (citing Ristaino v.  Ross, 424 U.S.
            _____                             ________     ____

            589, 597  n.9 (1976)).   The federal Constitution  requires a

            specific  inquiry into  racial  bias when  racial issues  are

            "'inextricably  bound up with  the conduct of  the trial'" or

            "substantial indications  of  the  likelihood  of  racial  or

            ethnic prejudice affecting the jurors" are present.  Rosales-
                                                                 ________

            Lopez, 451  U.S. at  189-190 (quoting Ristaino,  424 U.S.  at
            _____                                 ________

            596).  Apart from constitutional considerations, an appellate

            court, in the exercise of its supervisory authority over  the

            federal courts, should find reversible error if a lower court

            does not  acquiesce in a  defendant's request for  a specific

            inquiry  into   racial  bias  and  there   is  a  "reasonable

                                         -4-
                                          4

            possibility  that  racial  or  ethnic  prejudice  might  have

            influenced the jury."  Id. at 191.
                                   ___

                      After examining  the record, we  discern no  error,

            let alone plain error, in the district court's failure to ask

            the  question submitted by counsel or to frame a question sua

            sponte  going   to  Nigerian  nationality.     To  prove  the

            importation charge, the government had to show that defendant

            traveled  to the  United  States from  Nigeria; her  Nigerian

            passport  and airline ticket  were accordingly  introduced as

            evidence.  The bulk  of the government's case,  however, came

            from U.S. Customs and Immigration employees, who testified to

            the  suspicious circumstances  (independent of  her passport)

            that led to their  further inspection of her luggage;  from a

            forensic  chemist with  the Drug  Enforcement Administration,

            who  testified  to  the   nature  of  the  seized  controlled

            substance and the  chain of  custody; and from  a person  who

            lived at  the Chelsea, Massachusetts  address that  defendant

            named  as her  relative's home  and her own  destination, who

            testified  that  she did  not know  the defendant.   Adekoya,

            testifying  in her  own  defense (in  English), made  several

            references  to Nigeria,2 but also stated that she had been in

                                
            ____________________

            2.   For example,  she stated that  her roundtrip ticket  had
            been purchased by  a relative  in Nigeria; she  had made  the
            trip  to prepare with family  for her engagement  to a fiance
            who  remained  in  the  Washington  D.C.  area  for  lack  of
            traveling  papers; her  family  had packed  her bags  for the
            return  trip to the United  States; and she  had required new
            luggage for the return  trip because her bags were  lost when

                                         -5-
                                          5

            the United States since  1980 (except for a few  trips home),

            and most recently lived  in Maryland and worked as  a nursing

            assistant and  homemaker.   Her defense was  essentially that

            she  did  not pack  her  own bags,  that  her anxiety  at the

            airport was due to medications and coffee, and that there was

            some  doubt as to whether the  authorities had mishandled the

            substance that tested positive for heroin. 

                      Nothing causes this case to fall within the limited

            category  of cases  in  which a  specific inquiry  concerning

            racial bias is constitutionally  required.  See, e.g., Brown,
                                                        _________  _____

            938 F.2d at  1485 (unlike cases involving a  racially charged

            defense  or  jury deliberations  that  are  unique or  highly

            subjective,  no   specific  inquiry  into  racial   bias  was

            constitutionally  required  where   defendant  charged   with

            altering  notes was  a  young black  male and  all government

            witnesses  and  jurors were  white).    The circumstances  at

            trial,  including  the  evidence  pertaining  to  defendant's

            nationality, do not  indicate "a reasonable  possibility that

            racial or  ethnic prejudice might have  influenced the jury."

            Rosales-Lopez, 451 U.S.  at 191.  While some  references were
            _____________

            made to defendant's  home country and culture,  more would be

            needed to  create a  "reasonable possibility" on  these facts

                                
            ____________________

            she  arrived  in  Nigeria  and  encountered  turmoil  at  the
            airport.    Adekoya  also  attempted to  correct  a  possible
            inconsistency in  her statements about whom  she was visiting
            in Chelsea by saying that in Nigeria, a "cousin" is sometimes
            called a "sister."

                                         -6-
                                          6

            that the jury was influenced by prejudice.  See, e.g., id. at
                                                        _________  ___

            192-194 (interracial crime satisfies  "reasonable possibility

            standard," but racial or ethnic difference between  defendant

            and key government witness did not); United States v.  Kyles,
                                                 _____________     _____

            40  F.3d 519, 525 (2d Cir. 1994) (though cases of interracial

            violence  generally require  a specific  inquiry into  racial

            bias, circumstances  of armed  robbery "did  not rise to  the

            level of violence that would likely ignite a jury's potential

            prejudices[]"), cert.  denied, 115 S. Ct. 1419 (1995).  There
                            _____________

            is nothing to support  defendant's contention that the jurors

            were  likely to  be  aware of  cases  that have  referred  to

            Nigeria  as  a drug  source country.    See United  States v.
                                                    ___ ______________

            Okoronkwo,  46 F.3d  426, 434  (5th Cir.)  (rejecting similar
            _________

            assertion that local public  bias against Nigerians warranted

            a specific inquiry into nationality-based bias where Nigerian

            defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit tax fraud),

            cert.  denied,  116 S.  Ct.  107 (1995)  and 116  S.  Ct. 958
            _____________                            ___

            (1996).    The  prosecution  did  not  highlight  defendant's

            national origin, referring to  it no more than  in connection

            with the  charge  of  importation.    Nor  was  the  evidence

            presented by either  side the type that  created a reasonable

            possibility that race-  or nationality-based prejudice  might

                                         -7-
                                          7

            have influenced the  jury.3  A  more specific inquiry  during

            voir dire was not required.

                      Defendant also  asserts that her  rights under  the

            Fifth and  Sixth Amendment  and under Fed.R.Crim.P.  434 were

            violated when she  was allegedly not permitted  to be present

            at  sidebar   for  the  court's  individual   questioning  of

            prospective jurors.   The sidebar was held after the district

            judge posed several questions to the venire in open court and

            stated that  any  juror answering  a  question  affirmatively

            should  line up  to meet  with him.   The court  also invited

            counsel  to the  bench.   Defense  counsel then  asked, "Your

            Honor,  do you  want the  defendant present?",  to which  the

            court  responded, "I don't think it's necessary.  It's all on

            the record."   At no point  did the defendant or  her counsel

            tell  the  court  that   the  defendant  actually  wanted  to

            participate  at sidebar or object  to the procedure the judge

            announced in  open  court that  he would  follow.   Defendant

                                
            ____________________

            3.   Cf. United States v.  Alzanki, 54 F.3d 994, 1007 &  n.14
                 ___ _____________     _______
            (1st  Cir.  1995) (noting  approvingly  the district  court's
            careful inquiry into ethnic- or nationality-based bias during
            jury impanelment in an  involuntary servitude case where jury
            heard  evidence of repressive  Kuwaiti customs  and practices
            toward  domestic  workers),  cert.  denied, 116  S.  Ct.  909
                                         _____________
            (1996).

            4.   Rule 43 provides:
                      (a)  Presence  Required.   The  defendant  shall be
                      present  at the  arraignment,  at the  time of  the
                      plea,  at every  stage of  the trial  including the
                      impaneling  of  the  jury  and the  return  of  the
                      verdict, and at the imposition of sentence,  except
                      as otherwise provided by this rule.

                                         -8-
                                          8

            remained in the courtroom throughout the questioning, but was

            apparently unable to see  or hear the jurors at  the sidebar.

            Following   the  questioning,5   removals   for  cause,   and

            peremptory   strikes,  only   two  venire  members   who  had

            approached the bench  became actual  jurors.  At  the end  of

            jury selection,  in response to the  court's inquiry, defense

            counsel stated, "The panel is acceptable to the defense, Your

            Honor."

                      Because  defendant's  claim   may  be  resolved  on

            statutory  grounds, we  need  not discuss  her constitutional

            arguments.6     Federal  Rule  of  Criminal  Procedure  43(a)

            provides that  a defendant's  presence is required  "at every

            stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury . . .

            ."    Assuming a  sidebar conference  during  voir dire  is a

            "stage of  the proceeding"  at which defendant's  presence is

            required,  cf. United  States v.  Gagnon, 470  U.S.  522, 527
                       ___ ______________     ______

            (1985) (assuming  arguendo that defendants had  a right under

            Rule  43 to  be present  at court's  conference with  a juror

            about his continuing impartiality),  a strong argument can be

                                
            ____________________

            5.    The questions  centered  around  whether a  prospective
            juror  was inclined  to favor  or disfavor  testimony by  law
            enforcement  officers and whether she or he could be fair and
            impartial.

            6.   Defendant's right under  Rule 43 to be present  at trial
            proceedings  is broader than  the constitutional right alone.
            See United  States v. Gagnon,  470 U.S. 522,  526-527 (1985);
            ___ ______________    ______
            United States v. Gordon,  829 F.2d 119, 123 (D.C.  Cir. 1987)
            _____________    ______
            (citing circuit cases).

                                         -9-
                                          9

            made that she waived her right to be present,  though we need

            not  decide  the  issue,  see  infra.    The  district  court
                                      ___  _____

            announced  in open  court, in  defendant's presence,  that it

            would question individually  the venire members  who answered

            "yes"  to any  of  the general  questions.   In  response  to

            counsel's query  whether the  court "want[ed]"  the defendant

            present, the court said it did not think defendant's presence

            was necessary, but in no way indicated  hostility to allowing

            the  defendant to be  present if  she had  so requested.   No

            objection or express request  for defendant to be  present at

            sidebar followed.  See  id. at 528 (absence of  objection to,
                               ___  ___

            or  request to  be present  at, a  conference that  the court

            announced  it  would  hold  with  a  juror,  and  which   one

            defendant's  counsel  attended,  constituted  waiver  of  any

            personal right  to presence under  Rule 43);  but see  United
                                                          _______  ______

            States  v. Gordon,  829 F.2d  119, 126  n.8 (D.C.  Cir. 1987)
            ______     ______

            (distinguishing Gagnon and  requiring on-the-record  personal
                            ______

            waiver  where   right  to   be  present  concerns   the  jury

            impanelment stage and is grounded in both the Fifth Amendment

            and Rule 43).

                      We need not decide  if an effective waiver occurred

            since we can see no harm or prejudice to the defendant by her

            absence   at  sidebar  when   these  individual  jurors  were

            questioned.   Adekoya heard and observed  the initial general

            questioning  by  the  court,  and  her  counsel  was  present

                                         -10-
                                          10

            throughout the sidebar portion.  At  the latter, the district

            court  questioned nineteen prospective  jurors, excluded five

            for cause,  and permitted the government  and defense counsel

            to exercise numerous peremptory challenges.  Only two of  the

            nineteen were  selected to  be jurors.   Adekoya subsequently

            heard  and observed these two along  with other panel members

            being  questioned in  open court  concerning their  places of

            employment and spouses' places of employment.  In the absence

            of any objection  to either  the jurors or  the process,  and

            given  defense counsel's assurance to the court at the end of

            jury  selection that the panel was acceptable to the defense,

            the  district  court  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  the

            defendant  was dissatisfied,  and  indeed  nothing that  then

            occurred  indicates she was.  We can see no reversible error.

            See United States v. Pappas, 639 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st  Cir. 1980)
            ___ _____________    ______

            (district court's  exclusion  of counsel  and court  reporter

            from  individual   voir  dire,  while   disfavored,  did  not

            prejudice  defendant where  her counsel had  ample challenges

            available and further opportunity  to observe and to question

            prospective jurors but did not do so), cert. denied, 451 U.S.
                                                   ____________

            913  (1981).7    Moreover,   the  very  substantial  evidence

                                
            ____________________

            7.    See also United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 498
                  ________ _____________    __________
            (D.C. Cir. 1983) (exclusion of defendant from individual voir
            dire was harmless error  under Rule 43 where she  was present
            in  the courtroom the entire  time, a limited  portion of the
            voir   dire  was  conducted  at  the   bench  where  she  was
            represented by counsel,  she had time to confer  with counsel
            about  jurors'  responses  at   the  bench,  and  substantial

                                         -11-
                                          11

            against the defendant on  the drug importation and possession

            counts  makes  it  highly  unlikely that  she  was  convicted

            because  the  two  jurors  questioned  at  sidebar  had  some

            unfavorable   characteristic   that   defendant  could   have

            discerned  had  she been  present at  the  time.   Cf. United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Bullard, 37 F.3d 765, 767-768 (1st Cir. 1994) (pro
            ______     _______

            se defendant's absence from court conference inquiring into a

            juror's  attentiveness  was  not  prejudicial  where  standby

            counsel participated in the conference, evidence  against the

            defendant  was substantial,  and  nothing indicated  that the

            juror  had missed crucial evidence), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
                                                 ____________

            1809 (1995).

                      Lastly, defendant contends that  the court erred in

            instructing the jury that the  government must prove its case

            "beyond a reasonable  doubt" without  defining or  explaining

            "reasonable doubt."   As defense counsel  expressly agreed to

            the charge both before and after it  was given, we review for

            plain error  only.  Having  examined the record,  we conclude

            that the  instruction "adequately apprise[d] the  jury of the

                                
            ____________________

            evidence  supported a  finding  of guilt);  United States  v.
                                                        _____________
            Alessandrello, 637  F.2d 131,  139-143 (3d Cir.  1980), cert.
            _____________                                           _____
            denied, 451 U.S. 949 (1981); United States  v. Dioguardi, 428
            ______                       _____________     _________
            F.2d 1033, 1039-1040  (2d Cir.), cert.  denied, 400 U.S.  825
                                             _____________
            (1970); cf.  Gordon, 829 F.2d at  127-129 (distinguishing the
                    ___  ______
            above  cases  and  holding  that exclusion  of  defendant  in
            custody from  entire jury selection process  was not harmless
            error, where he would  have sought to challenge a  juror with
            personal and family connections  to law enforcement, and jury
            first saw defendant midway through the first day of trial). 

                                         -12-
                                          12

            proper  burden of proof."  See United States v. Olmstead, 832
                                       ___ _____________    ________

            F.2d  642, 646 (1st Cir.  1987), cert. denied,  486 U.S. 1009
                                             ____________

            (1988).

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -13-
                                          13