United States v. Anthony Roosevelt King , 387 F. App'x 948 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-14425 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 20, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 09-00013-CR-J-25-JKR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY ROOSEVELT KING,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 20, 2010)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Roosevelt King appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Prior to King’s trial, he submitted
proposed voir dire questions, including:
20. Would anyone be disappointed if Mr. King chose not
to take the stand and testify?
21. Does everyone agree that Mr. King is under no
obligation to testify?
The district court, over King’s objection, refused to pose these questions to the
venire during jury selection. King asserts the district court abused its discretion by
failing to adequately voir dire the venire, resulting in a Sixth Amendment
violation. King contends his proposed Questions 20 and 21 were necessary to
reveal juror bias, and the district court’s failure to ask them deprived him of
information upon which to base his strikes, notwithstanding its other questions and
instructions.1
Among the purposes of voir dire are to: (1) determine if prospective jurors
are “willing and able to properly apply the law,” and (2) reveal potential juror bias
or prejudice. United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1356 (11th Cir. 1983). With
respect to the first purpose, a district court “does not abuse its discretion in
1
We review a district court’s conduct of voir dire for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1983). The district court’s discretion includes whether or
not to submit a party’s proposed questions to the venire. United States v. Tegzes, 715 F.2d 505,
507 (11th Cir. 1983).
2
precluding voir dire examination of the prospective jurors’ understanding of the
law,” provided that the court’s other voir dire questions and later instructions
adequately explain the law. Id.With respect to the second purpose, because a “juror is poorly placed to
make a determination as to his own impartiality,” it is up to the trial court to make
that determination. United States v. Hawkins, 658 F.2d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1981).2
As such, the voir dire must be thorough, competent, and complete in order to
reveal past histories and personal prejudices. Vezina v. Theriot Marine Servs., Inc.,
610 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court does not abuse its discretion unless it
fails to reasonably assure prejudice would be discovered if present. Tegzes,
715 F.2d at 507. Moreover, a curative instruction ordinarily alleviates any
potential prejudice, and a jury is presumed to follow the district court’s
instructions. United States v. Mock, 523 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008).
Although the district court did not submit King’s proposed questions
regarding his right not to testify to the venire, the record convinces us the court’s
voir dire adequately presented King with the necessary indicia of bias upon which
to base his strikes. Furthermore, any flaw in failing to inform the venire about
2
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to close of business on September 30, 1981.
3
King’s right not to testify during voir dire was cured by the court’s instructions to
the jury, which we presume were followed, to draw no inferences from King’s
choice not to testify. The district court did not abuse its discretion during voir dire
by refusing to ask prospective jurors questions proposed by King. Accordingly,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4