United States v. Russell
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.
After their convictions on charges arising out of a large-scale marijuana-farming operation, Rodney Russell and Malcolm French sought a new trial based on claims *114 that one juror lied in filling out the written questionnaire given to all prospective jurors prior to trial, and that a second juror lied in voir dire. As we will explain, we agree that the district court's investigation concerning the answers given by one of the jurors was inadequate, so we vacate its denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial. We otherwise reject the defendants' various other…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Maldonado-PenaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
- United States v. TsarnaevCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2020
- United States v. Perez-VasquezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
- United States v. VelozCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2020
- United States v. ObioraCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.