## Facts

- Michael Shinault committed two armed robberies in Wichita, Kansas, using a semi-automatic pistol.
- He robbed two different stores, taking cash in each robbery.
- A federal grand jury charged Shinault with:
  - two counts of interfering with interstate commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1951;
  - two counts of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and
  - one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- After voir dire, a 12-person jury (with no alternates) was sworn.
- Immediately after the jury was sworn, one juror told the court she had child-care obligations that would make service difficult.
- The district court excused that juror and, without objection from either party, seated and swore a replacement juror drawn from the venire.
- The jury convicted Shinault on all counts.
- At sentencing, the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act penalty provision, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on Shinault’s prior convictions and imposed a total sentence of 562 months’ imprisonment.
- Shinault appealed his convictions and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether excusing a sworn juror and seating a replacement juror, after the jury was sworn but before evidence was presented, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether convictions and consecutive sentences for Hobbs Act robbery and using/carrying a firearm under § 924(c), arising from the same robberies, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause as multiple punishments for the same offense.
3. Whether the district’s jury-selection process violated the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement.
4. Whether the Hobbs Act jury instructions improperly removed or directed the interstate-commerce element.
5. Whether the Hobbs Act, as applied to these robberies, exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
6. Whether the district court erred in applying the ACCA penalty provision under § 924(e) based on Shinault’s prior convictions.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Shinault’s convictions and 562-month sentence.
- The court held that substituting a juror after the jury was sworn, where the substitution occurred before evidence was presented and without objection, did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The court held that cumulative convictions and consecutive sentences for Hobbs Act robbery and § 924(c) did not violate Double Jeopardy because Congress authorized separate punishment and the offenses require different elements.
- The court rejected Shinault’s fair-cross-section challenge, concluding he did not establish the showing required to prove unconstitutional underrepresentation in venires.
- The court held the Hobbs Act instructions, considered as a whole, did not direct a verdict on the interstate-commerce element and left the necessary factual determinations for the jury.
- The court rejected the claim that the Hobbs Act was unconstitutional as applied after *United States v. Lopez*, concluding the statute permissibly reaches robberies with at least a minimal effect on interstate commerce.
- The court upheld application of § 924(e) because the record supported the district court’s finding that Shinault had the qualifying prior convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is sworn, but not every post-swearing change in the jury results in a second jeopardy; replacing a juror before evidence begins, particularly where the parties do not object, does not itself constitute a second prosecution or an impermissible termination and restart of jeopardy.
- The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense unless Congress clearly authorizes cumulative punishment; under the *Blockburger* test, two offenses are not the same if each requires proof of an element the other does not.
- A Hobbs Act robbery and a § 924(c) firearm offense are distinct crimes because Hobbs Act robbery requires proof of robbery affecting commerce, while § 924(c) requires proof of firearm use or carriage during and in relation to a predicate crime of violence.
- A Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim requires proof that (1) the allegedly excluded group is distinctive, (2) the group’s representation in jury venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to its presence in the community, and (3) the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process.
- For Hobbs Act prosecutions, the government must prove an effect on interstate commerce, but the required effect may be minimal; jury instructions are proper if they state that requirement and leave the factual determination to the jury.
- Congress may regulate robberies under the Hobbs Act where the robberies have at least a minimal effect on interstate commerce; challenges based on *Lopez* fail where the statute includes a commerce element and the proof supports that element.
- A sentencing court may apply the ACCA penalty provision, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), when the defendant’s § 922(g) conviction is accompanied by the required number of qualifying prior convictions, supported by reliable records and subject to the defendant’s opportunity to contest them.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Shinault*, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Michael Shinault’s Hobbs Act, § 924(c), and felon-in-possession convictions and his 562-month sentence under § 924(e), holding that replacing a sworn juror before evidence began did not violate Double Jeopardy, cumulative Hobbs Act and § 924(c) punishments were authorized and involved separate elements, and Shinault’s additional challenges to the jury pool, the commerce-element instructions, the Hobbs Act’s constitutionality as applied, and the ACCA sentencing determination lacked merit.


United States v. Shinault, 147 F.3d 1266 (1998)