Myking Green was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The incident began when police pulled over a vehicle for running a stop sign. Green, a front-seat passenger, exited the car and was detained by Officer Muñoz. When the officer opened the unlocked front-passenger door, he found a loaded gun lying in plain sight on the floorboard directly in front of where Green had been sitting. Green was arrested after a background check revealed his prior felony status. During the trial, the district court dismissed Juror 10 after the juror repeatedly interrupted proceedings, refused to listen to evidence, and stated he did not care about the outcome or the court's instructions. Green moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence of possession and that the juror's dismissal violated his rights, but the district court denied the motion and convicted him. Green appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit addressed two primary issues: the sufficiency of the evidence for constructive possession and the propriety of dismissing Juror 10. Regarding possession, the court applied the standard that constructive possession requires proof that the defendant knew of the firearm's presence and had the ability and intent to exercise dominion and control over it. The court found the evidence sufficient because the gun was not hidden but lay in plain sight on the floorboard directly at Green's feet. Citing United States v. Gates and County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, the court reasoned that it is rational to infer that an occupant is aware of and controls a weapon found in plain view within their immediate reach, even if they do not own the vehicle or have physical custody at the exact moment of arrest. The court distinguished cases where weapons were hidden or in the middle of the car, noting that the proximity and visibility here supported a reasonable inference of possession. On the juror issue, the court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The record showed Juror 10 was visibly angry, interrupted cross-examination to argue about the legality of the stop, slept through testimony, and explicitly stated he would not follow the court's instructions or care about the verdict. The court emphasized that the district judge's first-hand observations of the juror's contemptuous behavior and refusal to perform his duties provided reasonable cause for dismissal. The court rejected Green's argument that the dismissal prejudiced his substantial rights, noting that the alternate juror was drawn from the same pool and afforded the same treatment, and that the evidence against Green was strong enough that the juror's removal did not alter the fairness of the trial.
Green's conviction stands, and he remains subject to his criminal sentence. The decision reinforces that constructive possession can be proven by circumstantial evidence showing a defendant's access to a weapon in plain sight within a vehicle. It also clarifies that trial judges have broad discretion to remove jurors who demonstrate an unwillingness to follow instructions or ignore evidence, without needing to conduct extensive inquiries if the misconduct is obvious.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download