United States v. Mills
Decision Date | 15 July 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16-cr-20460 |
Citation | 389 F.Supp.3d 528 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Edwin MILLS, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Louis Crisostomo, Linda Aouate, United States Attorney's Office, Aldous Brant Cook, U.S. Department of Justice, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Gerald J. Gleeson, II, Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, PLC, Troy, MI, Jean deSales Barrett, Ruhnke & Barrett, Montclair, NJ, Jacqueline K. Walsh, Walsh & Larranaga, Seattle, WA, Judith S. Gracey, The Gracey Law Firm, Keego Harbor, MI, Richard H. Morgan, Jr., Law Office of Richard H. Morgan Jr., Pontiac, MI, Avraham C. Moskowitz, Moskowitz, Book and Walsh, LLP, New York, NY, Stephen T. Rabaut, Clinton Township, MI, Michael O. Sheehan, Sheehan and Reeve, New Haven, CT, Michael A. Rataj, Sanford A. Schulman, Christopher W. Quinn, II, Federal Defender, Federal Defender Office, Detroit, MI, Sanford Plotkin, Sanford Plotkin, P.C., Ann Arbor, MI, John M. McManus, McManus Law, Royal Oak, MI, Vincent J. Toussaint, Toussaint Law, James A. Waske, Southfield, MI, for Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EDWIN MILLS AND CARLO WILSON'S JOINT MOTION FOR A PETIT JURY DRAWN EXCLUSIVELY FROM WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN (Dkt. 771)
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Edwin Mills and Carlo Wilson's joint motion for a petit jury drawn exclusively from Wayne County, Michigan (Dkt. 771). The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion (Dkt. 792), to which Defendants replied (Dkt. 832).1 For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.
Because the Court has previously described the factual and procedural background of this case in greater detail in other opinions, it need not do so again for purposes of the present motion. See, e.g., United States v. Mills, 378 F. Supp. 3d 563 (E.D. Mich. 2019) ( ); United States v. Mills, No. 16-cr-20460, 2019 WL 1915762 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2019) ( ); United States v. Mills, 367 F. Supp. 3d 664 (E.D. Mich. 2019) ( ).
Defendants argue that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3235, they are entitled to a petit jury drawn exclusively from Wayne County, Michigan, and not the nine counties that a jury would usually be drawn from for trials held in the Detroit division of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.2 Defendants claim to find further support for their position in the Sixth Amendment and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 ("JSSA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.
The constitutional right to a jury trial appears twice in the U.S. Constitution. First, Article III provides that "the Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3. Second, the Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a ... trial[ ] by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law." U.S. Const. amend VI.3 It is readily apparent that Article III was concerned with establishing a jury trial right in criminal cases and venue for criminal trials, while the Sixth Amendment reconfirmed these rights and added the right to a jury from the locale of the crime, known as vicinage.4
When it comes to federal capital cases in particular, the venue of the trial has been further limited by legislation. Section 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 once provided that, in "cases punishable with death, the trial shall be had in the county where the offence was committed, or where that cannot be done without great inconvenience, twelve petit jurors at least shall be summoned from thence." Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 29, 1 Stat. 88. The latter vicinage requirement that twelve jurors in capital cases be summoned from the county of the crime was later repealed in 1862. See Zicarelli v. Gray, 543 F.2d 466, 478 n.60 (3d Cir. 1976) (citing Act of July 16, 1862, ch. 189, § 2, 12 Stat. 588). The current statute governing the venue of capital cases— 18 U.S.C. § 3235 —similarly provides that "[t]he trial of offenses punishable with death shall be had in the county where the offense was committed, where that can be done without great inconvenience."
Defendants contend that § 3235 must be interpreted to mean that they are entitled to a petit jury composed of citizens only from the county in which offense was committed—here, Wayne County. According to Defendants, the phrase "had in the county where the offence was committed" in Section 29 of the Judiciary Act expressed Congress's intent to guarantee a "county-level vicinage right to those facing capital punishment ...." Defs. Mot. at 9-10. Defendants argue that, although it was later amended in 1862, the unaltered clause in Section 29 is virtually identical to the language in § 3235, and, therefore, it should similarly be interpreted to mean that "a federal capital defendant is entitled to a jury drawn from that county's residents as well as to proceedings within its geographic boundaries." Defs. Mot. at 12. The Court finds Defendants' argument meritless.
The Court begins with the text of § 3235, ascribing the statute's words with their plain and ordinary meaning, while, at the same time, ensuring that any construction of § 3235 would not render any part of it inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant. Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009) ; United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 680, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985). If the statutory language is plain given the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme," the Court "must enforce [ § 3235 ] according to its terms." King v. Burwell, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489, 192 L.Ed.2d 483 (2015) ; accord United States v. Bedford, 914 F.3d 422, 427 (6th Cir. 2019) ( ).
Section 3235 is clear and unambiguous. Under a plain and straightforward reading, the statute merely provides that a federal capital trial must generally be held in the county where the offense was committed, but even that right is not absolute. Cf. United States v. Taylor, 316 F. Supp. 2d 722, 727 (N.D. Ind. 2004) ( ). Nothing in the statute's text suggests that the jurors must be drawn from the same county. Indeed, the very heading of this statute—"Venue in capital cases"—clearly indicates that it addresses venue for capital cases, nothing more. See Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 47, 128 S.Ct. 2326, 171 L.Ed.2d 203 (2008) .
Moreover, § 3235 finds itself within the statutory scheme of Chapter 211 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which establishes the rules governing "Jurisdiction and Venue" in criminal cases. While Defendants are correct that, at one point in time, a capital defendant had a statutory right to a jury selected from the county of the offense, Congress repealed that right in 1862 "after realizing the difficulty obtaining impartial jurors from the immediate vicinity of the crime." United States v. Watts, No. 14-cr-40063, 2016 WL 6873040, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016) ; United States v. Parker, 19 F. Supp. 450, 459-460 (D.N.J. 1937) ( ); see also G. Ben Cohen & Robert J. Smith, " The Racial Geography of the Federal Death Penalty," 85 Wash. L. Rev. 425, 441-442 (2010) () .
Defendants' failure to find support for their position in the case law is not surprising, as it appears that every court interpreting § 3235 has reached the same conclusion as this Court. See, e.g., Watts, 2016 WL 6873040, at *3 (); United States v. Ciancia, No. CR 13-902, 2015 WL 13798679, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015) (); United States v. Northington, No. 07-550-05, 2014 WL 1789151, at *9-10 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2014) ( ); United States v. Savage, Nos. 07-550-04, 07-550-05, 2012 WL 4616099, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2012) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Auzenne
...was committed, although the jury may be drawn from a division of the district rather than the entire district." United States v. Mills, 389 F. Supp. 3d 528, 533 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing numerous cases). The Rules of Criminal Procedure only require the Court to "set the place of a trial wit......
-
United States v. Walters
...was committed, although the jury may be drawn from a division of the district rather than the entire district." United States v. Mills, 389 F. Supp. 3d 528, 533 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing numerous cases). Rather, the Rules of Criminal Procedure require that "[t]he court must set the place of......
-
United States v. Barrett
...was committed, although the jury may be drawn from a division of the district rather than the entire district." United States v. Mills, 389 F. Supp. 3d 528, 533 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing numerous cases). The bottom line is that "venue exists anywhere within the judicial district in whichthe......