U.S. v. Seifer

Defendant was not entitled to new trial on mail fraud and theft charges, even though Dist. Ct. empaneled 13 jurors without designating alternate, who was then chosen randomly by defendant just prior to deliberations. While govt. conceded that method of selecting alternative juror violated Crim. Rule of Procedure 24(c), Defendant, who failed to object to said procedure, could not establish any prejudice arising out of said error, where: (1) defendant did not assert that any of 13 jurors were biased; and (2) record failed to support defendant’s claim that juror number 13, who wound up on jury, paid less attention during trial than other jurors.