U.S. v. Bard

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s challenge to prosecutor’s use of preemptory challenge on black juror, where prosecutor explained that said challenge was used because black juror stated that he had brother who had drug-dealing conviction. While defendant contended that said explanation was pretext for race discrimination, where prosecutor did not excuse two white jurors who stated that relative had some sort of drug conviction, Dist. Ct. could properly find that neither juror was suitable comparative, since there was no evidence that convictions at issue with relati1ves of said jurors concerned drug dealing offenses. Also, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error by failing to abide by all of dual-testimony procedures set forth in Jett, 908 F.3d 252, when instructing jurors on how to evaluate detective’s expert testimony regarding his interpretation of code words used by defendant and others curing telephone conversations, and his fact testimony regarding steps he took to investigate drug dealing efforts by defendant and others. Record showed that Dist. Ct. had adhered to most of Jett court’s directives, and prosecutor separated detective’s lay and expert testimonies for jury’s consideration. Moreover, record contained overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.