221014P.pdf   01/09/2023  United States  v.  Ronald Finley, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-1014
                          and No:  21-1052
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court correctly denied 
   defendant Finley's motion to suppress as the totality of the circumstances 
   - his interaction with police during the day in a public area, that law 
   enforcement officers wore tactical vests emblazoned "Police" and displayed 
   badges, and that the officers repeatedly issued commands consistent with 
   arrest - was sufficient to lead a reasonable police officer to believe 
   Finley was fleeing with intent to avoid arrest in violation of Minnesota 
   law; with respect to defendant Sommerville, officers arrested him after he 
   fled from them, at which point they had probable cause to arrest him for 
   fleeing with intent to avoid arrest, and the court properly denied his 
   motion to suppress the weapon seized as part of the arrest; even assuming 
   the district court erred in granting the government's motion in limine and 
   in permitting the government to introduce evidence connecting defendant 
   Sommerville with an earlier drive-by shooting, the error was harmless; 
   where the district court sent the voir dire pool a written questionnaire 
   and then declined to let the defendants see the written responses, the 
   court could not determine whether the subsequent voir dire questioning was 
   adequate, and the matter is remanded to the district court for the limited 
   purpose of disclosing the completed questionnaires to defendant 
   Sommerville and the government and taking any steps it deems necessary to 
   determine whether concealed jury bias prejudiced Sommerville, including 
   holding a hearing - see McDonough Power Equip., Inc v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 
   548,556 (1984); the court retains jurisdiction over the appeal to review 
   the district court's supplemental order.