United States v. Omar Christopher Miller, 102418 FED2, 17-2140-cr
|Party Name:||United States of America, Appellee, v. Omar Christopher Miller, AKA Andy Fowl, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELEE: Ian C. Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas and Andrew Gilman, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Matthew B. Larsen, Assist...|
|Judge Panel:||Present: José A. Cabranes, Robert D. Sack, Circuit Judges, John G. Koeltl, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||October 24, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of October, two thousand eighteen.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (William F. Kuntz, II, Judge).
FOR APPELEE: Ian C. Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas and Andrew Gilman, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Matthew B. Larsen, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY.
Present: José A. Cabranes, Robert D. Sack, Circuit Judges, John G. Koeltl, District Judge. [*]
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the July 10, 2017 judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED, but the cause is REMANDED to the District Court for resentencing.
Defendant-Appellant Omar Miller ("Miller") appeals from a judgment of the District Court convicting him, after trial, of visa fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), and sentencing him principally to twelve months' incarceration to be followed by three years of supervised release. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Miller's primary argument on appeal is that the District Court erred by failing to elicit, during voir dire, certain information from the prospective jurors, such as their occupations, views on immigration or visa fraud generally, and relationship to law enforcement personnel. Miller claims that without this information, he was unable to meaningfully exercise his peremptory challenges.
"Voir dire is necessarily a matter in which the trial court has extremely broad discretion," and "trial judges are not required to ask every question that counsel-even all counsel-believes is appropriate." United States v. Lawes, 292 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir. 2002). This is in part because, with respect to voir dire, the interests of the court and counsel are not necessarily aligned. See id. ("The court wants a fair and impartial jury to be chosen and to move expeditiously to the presentation of evidence. Counsel want a jury favorable to their cause-fair or not-and voir dire aids them in exercising peremptory...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP