ILNews

7th Circuit affirms men’s drug convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a consolidated appeal brought by two men convicted on charges stemming from a heroin conspiracy, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed their convictions. Ronald Zitt, who went to trial, argued he was entitled to a mistrial. Joshua Wampler pleaded guilty but argued he should be allowed to appeal.

The two were charged in a multi-count, multi-defendant indictment alleging a heroin conspiracy and substantive counts of distribution. Zitt was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute and of distributing heroin; Wampler pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin.

At Zitt’s trial, government witness James Summers answered a question saying, “I was in prison while he’s locked up,” referring to Zitt. Zitt’s attorney immediately moved for a mistrial, which was denied. The attorney declined the judge’s other remedies: a recess to investigate whether the two men were in the same facility at the same time or an admonishment to the jury that Summers’ answer was irrelevant.

“Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Summers’s testimony was improper, the statement was not so prejudicial that Zitt was denied a fair trial, so any arguable error would be harmless. Summers’s comment was brief and nondescript and, afterward, Zitt’s criminal history was never mentioned again,” Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote. “Thus, there was no danger that, because of this fleeting answer, the jury was prevented from fairly evaluating the evidence.”

“Finally, any impact Summers’s quick reference to Zitt’s past jail time may have had on the jury is outweighed by the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” he continued.

Turning to Wampler’s appeal, the judges dismissed his appeal finding he waived his right to appeal as a condition of his plea agreement. Wampler’s appointed attorney concluded that the appeal is frivolous and sought to withdraw. The Circuit judges granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw and denied Wampler’s motion for substitute counsel.

The case is United States of America v. Ronald Zitt and Joshua Wampler, 12-1277, 12-2865.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT