U.S. v. Granger

In prosecution on drug conspiracy and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ request to remove juror for cause, even though juror, who was retired police officer, stated, among other things, that he “probably would” be more inclined to believe police officer than any civilian witness, whom he knew nothing about. Dist. Ct. noted that juror promised to keep open mind when evaluating all witnesses’ testimonies, and that officer otherwise indicated that he would be fair. Ct. of Appeals, in affirming defendant’s convictions, held that Dist. Ct.’s assessment of juror’s honesty and ability to be fair-minded was entitled to deference. Fact that juror conceded that he would be inclined to give more weight to police officer’s testimony than to testimony of civilian witness whom he knew nothing about did not require different result, even though juror uttered said concession after he had indicated that he would be open-minded when evaluating all witnesses. Defendant, though, was entitled to new sentence hearing, where Dist. Ct. had failed to make determination as to what criminal conduct in conspiracy was reasonably foreseeable to defendant.