4th Cir.

United States v. Gildo Ricci

May 28, 2026 ·25-4261 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court held that the district court acted within its broad discretion to strike a prospective juror for cause without a detailed factual inquiry into the juror's prior involvement in a criminal case.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:05

Background

Gildo Ricci appealed his jury conviction and an eighteen-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Section twenty-one United States Code Section eight hundred forty-one. Ricci argued that the district court abused its discretion by granting the Government’s motion to strike a prospective juror for cause without first obtaining a sufficient factual basis to determine the juror’s impartiality.

The court’s reasoning

The court noted that the adequacy of voir dire is not easily subject to appellate review and that trial judges retain broad discretion in deciding whether to excuse a juror for cause. The court emphasized that a trial judge is in the best position to evaluate a prospective juror’s credibility based on demeanor, inflection, and body language. Because defense counsel failed to make a specific objection during the voir dire process, the court applied the plain error standard of review. Under this standard, Ricci could not obtain relief unless the error was plain, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings. The court found no reversible error, noting that the district court’s decision to strike the juror to avoid embarrassing the juror was within its discretion. The court distinguished Ricci’s reliance on United States versus Rucker, explaining that Rucker involved a refusal to inquire into physical or mental incompetence, whereas this case involved a for-cause strike that did not deplete the defense’s peremptory challenges.

Voir dire plays an essential role in guaranteeing a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, in that it enables the court to select an impartial jury and assists counsel in exercising peremptory challenges.

United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 2011)

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the broad discretion afforded to district courts in conducting jury selection and limits appellate intervention to cases of manifest abuse of discretion or plain error when objections are not preserved.

Play