Reed v. United States

Background

The case involves John Reed, a criminal defendant, and the United States. In the trial court, a thirteenth, alternate juror was allowed to take part in the jury’s deliberations after defense counsel agreed. The thirteen jurors unanimously found the defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that using a thirteen-member jury violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c), and that the rule cannot be waived except by the defendant personally.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the federal rule about jury composition can be waived by a lawyer or must be waived by the defendant in person. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s lawyer had waived the rule, finding the waiver was not prejudicial or of constitutional magnitude and that any failure to obtain the defendant’s personal assent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, so it did not take up or change that ruling.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to review the case, the appeals court’s decision stands in this matter. That leaves unanswered how other federal appeals courts should treat similar situations. The denial means the disagreement among circuits about whether a defendant must personally agree to such a waiver remains unresolved, so defendants and lawyers in different circuits may face different rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial of review. He argued the Court should have granted review to resolve a clear conflict with earlier decisions from other circuits that require an express, personal waiver by the defendant or treat such violations as automatically reversible.