U.S. v. Brasher

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion challenging prosecutor's use of two peremptory challenges to exclude two out of three African-American jurors, where prosecutor explained that said jurors were stricken because one juror's brother had been charged (and acquitted) of drug offense while other juror had been convicted of misdemeanor drug offense. While defendant argued that said explanations were pretextual because prosecutor had not used peremptory challenge on white juror whose brother had been convicted of narcotics trafficking offense, Dist. Ct. could properly find that prosecutor's explanation was credible, where: (1) all pertinent facts were developed and considered by Dist. Ct.; (2) prosecutor had used peremptory challenge on another white juror whose brother had pleaded guilty to drug charge; (3) prosecutor allowed one African-American juror to sit on jury, even though prosecutor had available peremptory challenge; and (4) racial makeup of resulting jury was consistent with demographics of Dist. Ct.'s territory where case was tried. Record also contained sufficient evidence to support jury's guilty verdict on charged conspiracy, even though defendant claimed that there was material variance between charged offense and conspiracy that was established at trial. While defendant insisted that record showed existence of two separate conspiracies based upon separate drugs sales to defendant's supervisor by other dealers, jury could conclude that only single, charged conspiracy existed, where record showed that defendant was aware of said sales to others, and that instant enterprise extended beyond his own dealings with his supervisor.