Bank Robbery Conviction Affirmed
In US v. Lindsey, No. 09-50459, the court affirmed defendant's bank robbery conviction and sentence, holding that 1) defendant's Batson rights were not violated because he was not denied due process or tried before a biased jury; 2) a good faith, erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge does not require automatic reversal; and 3) the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that defendant conspired to rob the bank.
As the court wrote: "This case concerns the proper remedy for a good faith, erroneous denial of a defendant's peremptory challenge. Due to the district court's error in counting, Appellant Jamonn Lamont Lindsey ("Lindsey") received just nine out of the ten peremptory challenges afforded him by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Our circuit precedent provides for automatic reversal under these circumstances. United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). We conclude, however, that Annigoni was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Rivera v. Illinois, 129 S.Ct. 1446 (2009). Accordingly, we reject Annigoni's automatic reversal rule and review the denial of Lindsey's peremptory challenge under a more deferential standard of review. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Lindsey's conviction."
Related Resources
- Read the Ninth Circuit's Decision in US v. Lindsey, No. 09-50459
