USA v. Lucio Contreras

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11036
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00017-HLM-WEJ-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUCIO CONTRERAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 19, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11036 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Lucio Contreras appeals his drug trafficking convictions involving
methamphetamine1 raising one issue: whether the District Court abused its
discretion in excusing a juror for cause based on the juror’s one-word affirmative
response to a question about whether methamphetamine should be legalized, even
though the prospective juror later affirmed his ability to be fair and impartial.
The constitutional standard for whether a prospective juror can be impartial
is whether he can set his personal opinions aside and render a verdict based solely
on the evidence presented in court. United States v. Simmons, 961 F.2d 183, 184
(11th Cir. 1992). “In particular, when reviewing juror impartiality, this court has
focused on whether (1) the juror may be affected by matters not in evidence, and
(2) the juror may presume guilt rather than innocence.” United States v.
Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036, 1045 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). A potential
juror is unfit to serve when his “expressions of ability to abide by the evidence
presented in the court were at most qualified.” United States v. Martin, 749 F.2d
1514, 1518 (11th Cir. 1985); but cf. United States v. Rhodes, 177 F.3d 963, 965-66
(11th Cir. 1999) (determining a juror to be fit to serve despite concerns about her
capacity to evaluate the truthfulness of a witness-relative, when she “demonstrated
that those [prior] notions would not prevent her from deciding the case solely
1 Contreras was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute at least
five grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), and the
substantive possession offense, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1).
Case: 15-11036 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
based on the evidence presented in the court” and could ensure that any bias was
left outside the courtroom).
As the Supreme Court noted in Patton v. Yount, the process of determining,
at voir dire, whether a particular venireperson is biased essentially involves an
analysis of the individual’s credibility and, therefore, his or her demeanor. 467
U. S. 1025, 1038, 104 S. Ct. 2885, 2892, 81 L. Ed. 2d 847 (1984). Because it is
not always clear from the record that a prospective juror is unmistakably biased,
we must give deference to the District Court’s determination that the juror will be
unable to faithfully apply the law because the court had the opportunity to see and
hear the juror. Brown, 441 F.3d at 1357. There are few aspects of a jury trial
where we are less inclined to reverse the court’s exercise of discretion than in
ruling on challenges for cause in empaneling of a jury. United States v. Tegzes,
715 F.2d 505, 509 (11th Cir. 1983).
We find no abuse of discretion here. The juror’s response to the
prosecutor’s voir dire questions indicated that the juror’s ability to impartially
serve as a juror was questionable.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11036 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --