Government’s Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Proposed Instruction Regarding Defendants’ Pro Se Status — United States v. Grenon (Dkt. 173, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

The Government's Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Proposed Instruction Regarding Defendants' Pro Se Status in United States of America v. Mark Scott Grenon, Jonathan David Grenon, Jordan Paul Grenon, and Joseph Timothy Grenon, Case No. 21-20242-CR-ALTONAGA/TORRES, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed July 6, 2023. The United States lists questions it asks the Court to put to potential jurors. Rather than voir dire questions on the defendants' pro se status, it asks for a jury instruction at the outset of jury selection, attached to the filing, and suggests the Court may also explain the role of standby counsel. It requests additional voir dire on that subject if the Court declines to give the instruction.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 173 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 5




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                         CASE NO. 21-20242-CR-ALTONAGA/TORRES

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

  v.

  MARK SCOTT GRENON,
  JONATHAN DAVID GRENON,
  JORDAN PAUL GRENON, and
  JOSEPH TIMOTHY GRENON,

              Defendants.
  __________________________________/

            GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS AND
       PROPOSED INSTRUCTION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PRO SE STATUS

         The United States of America, through undersigned counsel, hereby requests that the Court

  ask the following questions of potential jurors during voir dire.

         The Government is not seeking any voir dire questions specifically addressing the

  defendants’ pro se status. Instead, we ask that the Court give a jury instruction at the outset of jury

  selection, in addition to its usual preliminary instructions, similar to those given in other cases and

  Circuits when pro se defendants are tried. A proposed instruction is attached to this filing. The

  Court may repeat this instruction in whole or part as needed during trial itself, and instruct the jury

  also about the role of standby counsel if standby counsel participate in this trial.

         If the Court is not inclined to instruct the jury preliminarily about the defendants’ pro se

  status, the Government would request additional voir dire questions on that subject.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 173 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 5




          1. This case will involve evidence relating to Covid-19. Does anyone have such strong
  feelings about Covid-19, or related topics such as vaccines, that you might not be a fair juror in
  this case?

         2. This case involves allegations about something called the Genesis II Church of Health
  and Healing. Is anyone familiar with that organization? Does anyone, because of their religious
  or moral beliefs, feel uncomfortable sitting as a juror in this case, or in general deciding whether a
  defendant is guilty of a crime?

          3. This case involves allegations that the defendants unlawfully conspired to sell an
  unapproved new drug called Miracle Mineral Solution. We all may have views about the health
  care system, including the cost and availability of drugs, but do any of you have such strong
  feelings about those topics that you might not be a fair juror in this case?

         4. This case will involve testimony from witnesses who work for the U.S. Food and Drug
  Administration, known as the FDA. The FDA is responsible for regulating the safe distribution of
  drugs in this country. Has anyone had an experience with the FDA, or any other agency of the
  United States government, that would make them uncomfortable serving as a juror in this case?

         In addition to those more case-specific questions, we would ask the Court to inquire about

  standard subjects including but not limited to the following:

          1. The law provides that the jury may not be governed by sympathy, prejudice, politics, or
  public opinion. With this in mind, do any of you know any reason why you would be unable to
  give either the United States or the defendant a fair trial?

          2. If you were selected to sit as a juror in this case, would you be willing and able to render
  a verdict based solely on the evidence presented and the law as the Court will give it to you in its
  instructions, disregarding any other ideas about what the law is, or should be?

         3. Is there anyone here that has had an experience with law enforcement that would
  influence your ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially?

         4. Is there anyone here that has had an experience with the legal system that would
  influence your ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially?

         5. Have you or your spouse ever had any legal training or worked for a lawyer or law firm?

          6. Have you or any family member ever held a job with any federal, state or local law
  enforcement agency? If yes, please describe who held the position, the agency and the time period
  the position was held.

          7. Have you ever applied to any federal, state or local law enforcement agency for a job?
  If yes, please describe the position you applied for, and the result or status of your application.



                                                    2

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 173 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 5




  Was there anything about that process that would cause you to distrust or dislike law enforcement
  agencies?

         8. Have you, your relatives or close friends ever been arrested, charged with a crime, or
  convicted of a crime? [If any potential juror answers this questions in the affirmative, the
  government respectfully requests that the Court question the potential juror regarding the
  circumstances, in private, at the bench, so as to avoid embarrassment to the potential juror.]

         9. Have you or any of your relatives or close friends been the victim of a crime? If yes,
  what type of crime? Were you satisfied with the way the matter was handled by the police or law
  enforcement agency? The prosecutors? The courts?




                                                 3

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 173 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 4 of 5




                                           Pro Se Defendant

         The Defendants have decided to represent themselves in this trial and not to use the services

  of a lawyer. They have a constitutional right to do that. Their decision has no bearing on whether

  they are guilty or not guilty, and it must not affect your consideration of the case.

         Because each Defendant has decided to act as his own lawyer, you may hear a Defendant

  speak at various times during the trial. They may make an opening statement and closing argument

  and may ask questions of witnesses, make objections, and argue legal issues to the court. I want to

  remind you that when a Defendant speaks in these parts of the trial, he is acting as a lawyer in the

  case, and his words are not evidence. The only evidence in this case comes from witnesses who

  testify under oath on the witness stand and from exhibits that are admitted.

  SOURCE:

  Ninth Circuit, Manual Model of Criminal Jury Instructions (2010), Instruction 1.15; Eighth
  Circuit, Criminal Jury Instructions § 2.23. The first paragraph above, based upon these sources,
  was given recently in United States v. Longsworth, Case 1:23-CR-20017-RAR (SDFL) (ECF49).




                                                    4

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 173 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 5 of 5




                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                            MARKENZY LAPOINTE
                                            UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                     BY:    /s/ Michael B. Homer
                                            MICHAEL B. HOMER
                                            Assistant United States Attorney
                                            Court ID No. A5502497
                                            99 Northeast 4th Street
                                            Miami, Florida 33132-2111
                                            Telephone: 305-961-9289
                                            Michael.Homer@usdoj.gov

                                            JOHN C. SHIPLEY
                                            Assistant United States Attorney
                                            Senior Counsel to the Criminal Division
                                            FL Bar No. 0069670
                                            99 Northeast 4th Street
                                            Miami, Florida 33132-2111
                                            Telephone: 305-961-9111
                                            John.Shipley@usdoj.gov



                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 6, 2023, I caused a true and correct copy of the

  foregoing to be filed and also delivered via Certified Mail to pro se Defendants Mark Grenon,

  Jonathan David Grenon, Jordan Paul Grenon, and Joseph Timothy Grenon at the Miami Federal

  Detention Center, Inmate Mail/Parcels, Post Office Box 019120, Miami, Florida 33101.



                                                    /s/ Michael B. Homer
                                                    MICHAEL B. HOMER
                                                    Assistant United States Attorney




                                               5

File and source

File

173.pdf

Size

162,382 bytes

SHA-256

e13a852045032e1389eba26a5042a8d7233b48760d3fc644537cc7fa26f2e2b1

Our copy

173.pdf