Filed: Sep. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-13704 _ D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-11895-RBD-JBT ANITA YOUNG MCCRAY, as personal representative of the Estate of Mercedia Walker Wilbert, Plaintiff - Appellant versus R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, individually and as successor by merger to the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the American Tobacco Company, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants – Appel
Summary: Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-13704 _ D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-11895-RBD-JBT ANITA YOUNG MCCRAY, as personal representative of the Estate of Mercedia Walker Wilbert, Plaintiff - Appellant versus R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, individually and as successor by merger to the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the American Tobacco Company, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants – Appell..
More
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13704
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-11895-RBD-JBT
ANITA YOUNG MCCRAY,
as personal representative of the Estate of Mercedia Walker Wilbert,
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,
individually and as successor by merger to the Brown and Williamson
Tobacco Corporation and the American Tobacco Company,
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants – Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 16, 2014)
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 2 of 7
Before TJOFLAT, COX, and ALARCÓN, ∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I. Facts & Procedural History
This appeal is from one of the numerous tobacco-related cases currently
working their way through federal and state courts in Florida. It was initially filed
in state court, but removed to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction.
Mercedia Walker Wilbert began smoking as a teenager in the 1950s. Despite her
repeated attempts to quit, she continued smoking for the rest of her life. She
eventually contracted lung cancer and died in 1994 at age fifty-nine because of that
cancer. Her daughter, Anita Young McCray, as personal representative of her
mother’s estate, subsequently filed an “Engle progeny” wrongful death suit in 2008
against several tobacco companies. 1 McCray alleged that her mother was a
member of the Engle class because she was addicted to cigarettes containing
nicotine which caused her death from lung cancer. Following a seven-day trial, a
jury found that the death of McCray’s mother was not legally caused by an
addiction to cigarettes containing nicotine. (Doc. 189). And the district court
∗
The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
For a discussion of what is an “Engle progeny” case, see Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.
2d 1246, 1256, 1268, 1277 (Fla. 2006), and our decision in Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
734 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2013).
2
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 3 of 7
entered judgment consistent with jury’s verdict. (Doc. 190). Consequently,
McCray’s mother did not qualify as a member of the Engle class.
II. Issues on Appeal
All of the issues McCray now raises on appeal, except one, relate to the
selection of the jury. On appeal, McCray contends that the district court
committed reversible error “when it denied [McCray] a meaningful voir dire of a
venire panel that had voiced overwhelming bias, by not entertaining several . . .
challenges [for cause] and by denying the right to exercise peremptory strikes on
three of the six jurors who decided this case.” (Appellant’s Initial Br. at 1).
III. Discussion
McCray’s contentions are problematic because we review rulings of the
district court—not cases. Which of the district court’s rulings on challenges for
cause McCray takes issue with is unclear from her initial brief. And equally
unclear are the three jurors on which the district court denied her right to exercise
peremptory strikes—especially since she never objected to any of the district
court’s rulings on her peremptory strikes.
The issue McCray raises which does not involve jury selection relates to the
charge the district court gave the jury about the statute of limitations. McCray
concedes that we need to reach this issue only if we remand for a new trial.
3
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 4 of 7
(Appellant’s Initial Br. at 38, 41). We agree, and because we are not remanding
for a new trial on the jury-selection issues, we need not address this issue.
McCray’s arguments can be divided into two broad categories: first, McCray
takes issue with the district court’s denial of her challenges for cause. And second,
McCray takes issue with how the district court conducted the jury selection
process—contending that she was essentially denied the right to exercise her
peremptory challenges. We address each of these contentions in turn.
A. McCray’s Challenges for Cause
McCray makes a somewhat ambiguous argument about how the district
court erred in denying her challenges for cause. More importantly, she does not
clearly state against which jurors the district court improperly denied her
challenges for cause. It appears from her initial brief that she contends that the
district court erred by denying her challenges for cause against Prospective Jurors
12, 23, and 24. (Appellant’s Initial Br. at 25). She points to these prospective
jurors as the biased individuals who actually served on the jury. (Id.).
McCray never challenged any of these three potential jurors for cause, and
thus, we have no challenges to review on this appeal. In fact, the Defendants
challenged each of these three potential jurors for cause. (Doc. 194 at 166–67).
And McCray successfully opposed each of these challenges. (Doc. 194 at 177,
179). Where a party induces or invites the district court to make an error, we will
4
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 5 of 7
decline to review that alleged error. United States v. Harris, 443 F.3d 822, 823
(11th Cir. 2006). And surely this is invited error. A party who invites error cannot
complain when the court accepts its invitation. Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v.
Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC,
684 F.3d 1211, 1231 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted). Accordingly, we hold that McCray invited any error the district court
made in not removing Prospective Jurors 12, 23, and 24 for cause.
What is more, McCray has waived her right to challenge the district court’s
ruling on any of her other challenges for cause because she did not raise those
issues in her initial brief. McCray makes a slightly different argument in her reply
brief. Because an appellant may properly raise arguments on appeal only in its
initial brief, we decline to consider McCray’s arguments that the district court
erred in denying McCray’s challenges for cause for any potential jurors other than
the three mentioned in her initial brief. See (Appellant’s Reply Br. at 7) (raising a
new argument); see also United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir.
1984) (stating that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not
properly before the reviewing court).
B. McCray’s Peremptory Challenges
McCray also contends that the manner in which the district court conducted
the jury selection process denied her the statutorily guaranteed use of her
peremptory challenges, and denied her basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
5
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 6 of 7
(Appellant’s Initial Br. at 37); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1870. These contentions lack
merit.
In fact, McCray never objected to the district court’s procedure or
complained to the court that she was not being allowed to appropriately exercise
her peremptory strikes. And she never objected to the district court’s ruling on any
of her peremptory strikes. It is well settled that failure to raise an objection before
the district court constitutes a waiver of that issue on appeal. See Winters v. Cook,
466 F.2d 1393, 1396 (5th Cir. 1972). Consequently, McCray has waived any
argument relating to her peremptory strikes.
Assuming, only for the sake of argument, that she has not waived these
arguments, we have long said that the “manner in which peremptory challenges are
to be exercised is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Gafford v.
Star Fish & Oyster Co., 475 F.2d 767, 767 (5th Cir. 1973). A district court has
wide discretion in conducting the jury selection process. United States v. Bryant,
671 F.2d 450, 455 (11th Cir. 1982). And here, a careful review of the record
shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The jury selection process
began at 9:20 a.m. (Doc. 194 at 4). And it ended about 3:55 p.m. (Doc. 194 at
180). McCray misleadingly indicates that the district court improperly truncated,
or hurried, the process in order to be able to handle another proceeding at 3:00 p.m.
(Appellant’s Initial Br. at 37) (citing Doc. 194 at 162). In fact, the district court
6
Case: 12-13704 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 7 of 7
recessed from 3:04 p.m. until 3:39 p.m. to take care of the other matter. (Doc. 194
at 173). It then returned to continue the jury selection process, having given the
parties those thirty-five minutes to consider which remaining prospective jurors to
challenge for cause and which prospective jurors to strike. While it is true that the
district court quickly ticked through the jury selection process once it reconvened,
it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. It acknowledged the time the court had
already provided the parties to consider their challenges. (Doc. 194 at 178). And
it understandably showed frustration that the parties were now taking more time to
decide which prospective jurors to challenge for cause and which prospective
jurors to strike. (Id.). McCray successfully exercised three peremptory challenges
during the jury selection process, and finished the process with one unexercised
peremptory challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
IV. Conclusion
Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
7
