## Facts

- Patrick Joseph Greene was indicted in the Southern District of Iowa on five drug-related counts.
- After a jury trial, Greene was convicted on four counts and acquitted on one count.
- The district court imposed 120-month concurrent sentences on each of the four convictions.
- Greene challenged the jury selection plan because it excluded persons who had been charged (but not convicted) of felonies from grand jury and petit jury service.
- After Greene’s arrest, a DEA agent (at the prosecutor’s request) spoke with Greene about potential cooperation; the agent stated he could not make promises and could only relay Greene’s willingness to cooperate to the prosecutor.
- Greene made incriminating statements during that interaction and later sought suppression on the theory they were made during plea discussions.
- At trial, certain hearsay was conditionally admitted; when the required foundation was not provided, the court struck the hearsay and instructed the jury to disregard it, but denied Greene’s mistrial motion.
- One count charged manufacture of marijuana allegedly occurring in the Southern District of Iowa; the government’s proof showed marijuana fields but did not conclusively establish that they were within the charging district.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding from jury service persons charged but not convicted of felonies violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether the same exclusion violates the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Greene rejected a plea agreement.
4. Whether Greene’s statements to a DEA agent were inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 as statements made during plea discussions.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after striking hearsay and giving a curative instruction.
6. Whether the government failed to prove venue for the marijuana-manufacturing count.
7. Whether the district court clearly erred by applying a four-level organizer enhancement based on criminal activity involving five or more participants.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Greene’s convictions and rulings on the jury-composition challenges, the evidentiary rulings, the denial of mistrial, and the organizer enhancement.
- The court reversed the conviction on the marijuana-manufacturing count for insufficient proof of venue.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal on the reversed count.
- The court remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts due to the reversal of one count.

## Legal Principles

- Excluding persons charged but not convicted of felonies from jury service satisfies equal protection when the classification is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in juror integrity and impartiality.
- For Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section analysis, persons charged but not convicted of felonies are not a “distinctive group” whose exclusion triggers a fair-cross-section violation.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over relevance-based evidentiary rulings, including exclusion of evidence that a defendant rejected a plea offer when probative value is minimal and risks confusion.
- Rule 410 and Rule 11 protections apply to plea discussions with a government attorney, or an agent with authority reasonably understood to negotiate; statements to a law-enforcement agent who disclaims negotiating authority are not shielded as plea discussions.
- Striking improperly admitted evidence and issuing a curative instruction generally cures prejudice; denial of mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires substantial incurable prejudice.
- Venue must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to establish that the offense occurred in the charged district requires reversal and entry of judgment of acquittal on that count.
- A role-in-the-offense organizer enhancement is a fact-bound determination reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Greene’s convictions and sentencing enhancement on most counts, but reversed the marijuana-manufacturing conviction because the government did not prove venue in the charging district, ordering an acquittal on that count and remanding for resentencing on the remaining convictions.


United States v. Greene, 995 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1993)