United States v. Alfonso S. Padilla, United States of America v. Felix Mike, Edward Robinson, Anita Louise Hess

Hess, Robinson, Mike, and Padilla appeal from their convictions, after jury trial, for possession of heroin with intent to distribute and distribution, and for conspiracy to so possess and distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846. Robinson also appeals from his conviction for using a telephone in facilitating the conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 (b).

Hess requested that each juror be asked on voir dire what his reaction was to the fact that Hess is Caucasian and her co-defendants Robinson and Lawson (the latter not involved on this appeal) are black. The trial judge asked if any jurors would be prejudiced against any defendant because of either his or her race or the make-up of the defendants as a group. He got a negative response. Appellants now first urge that the question was inadequate, but at trial they made no further request for clarification. The trial judge has broad discretion as to what voir dire questions are asked, and a question asking for a “yes” or “no” answer as to the existence of racial prejudice can be adequate [Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 , 525n, 527, 93 S.Ct. 848 , 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973) ], and was, in fact,…