U.S. v. Eiland

Defendant was found guilty of selling cocaine to a government informant. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence against him was insufficient, the prosecutor indirectly commented on his decision not to testify, and a juror improperly drew a negative inference from his silence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that it could not conclude that no rational trier of fact would have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that any error regarding the rebuttal argument of the prosecution did not rise to plain error, and that defendant was not entitled to a new trial based a juror’s remark after trial. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and MALDONADO, concurring)