Skip to main content

Rules of Evidence (not Bruton) apply to admission of non-testimonial statements, § 924(j) incorporates 924(c)'s consecutive sentencing scheme . . .

The Rules of Evidence (not Bruton) apply to admission of non-testimonial statements by co-defendants, 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) incorporates the consecutive sentencing scheme of 924(c), and other trial issues deemed not reversible error (improper admission of 404(b) evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and jury charges).

United States & Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Berrios, Nos. 07-2818, 07-2887, 07-2888 and 07-2904 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2012), is an appeal from a four defendant trial for the federal charges of carjacking, attempted robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and causing the death of a person through use of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), and the Virgin Island charges of felony murder and unauthorized use of a firearm. The Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. While the Court primarily addressed the intersection between the Confrontation Clause and Federal Rules of Evidence and between 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (j), this case provides a good outline of the relevant appellate analysis of prosecutorial misconduct (vouching during witness examination and closing argument) and faulty jury instructions.

Some of the evidence admitted at trial came from a Title III recording of two of the defendants made while they detained and being investigated for unrelated charges. The question was what could be admitted against the non-recorded co-defendants. In light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), and Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S.Ct. 1143 (2011), the Court set forth a twofold inquiry. First, determine whether an out-of-court statement or portions of it are testimonial. If the statement is testimonial, the Confrontation Clause prohibits admissibility unless a witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examine. If the statement is non-testimonial, admissibility is governed solely by the Rules of Evidence and not the Roberts “indicia of reliability” test. (Rejecting contrary interpretation in United States v. Jiminez, 513 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 2008) and Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2007)). The Court acknowledged that the Rules of Evidence address similar concerns of reliability as Roberts.

This distinction requires different standards of appellate review. Fundamental constitutional errors – that affect substantial rights – require automatic reversal. All other constitutional errors may be disregarded if they are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Non-constitutional errors are harmless when it is highly probable that the error did not prejudice the defendant. See United States v. Diallo, 575 F.3d 252, 264 (3d Cir. 2009).

The Court determined that, here (not categorically), the Title III recordings were non-testimonial. Thus, because Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968)) was a “by-product” of the Confrontation Clause, and the statements on the Title III recording were non-testimonial, Bruton did not preclude admission of the statements against the non-recorded co-defendants. The Court rejected cases that had held otherwise. See Monachelli v. Graterford, 884 F.2d 749 (3d Cir. 1989) and United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855 (3d Cir. 1983). Under the Rules of Evidence, the recordings were admissible as statements against penal interest, Rule 804(b)(3) – braggadocio that inculpated the speakers as well as other co-defendants.

The Court rejected the double jeopardy challenge to imposition of consecutive life term sentences for felony murder (V.I. law) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). The Court found clear legislative intent to impose multiple punishments for a single underlying transaction. 924(j) expressly requires a 924(c) violation, penalizing a person who causes a death “in the course of committing a violation of subsection (c).” The Third Circuit concluded that 924(j) extends the penalty regime “imposed under” subsection (c), incorporating the consecutive sentence mandate in 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which is the “veritable raison d’etre” of the statutory scheme. Such an interpretation avoids the anomalous result that 924(c) requires a consecutive sentence except when a firearm was used during a violent crime and a murder occurred. Although the Court concluded 924(j) was not merely a sentencing enhancement for (c), it also declined to resolve here whether 924(j) was a discrete offense.

The Court also found that 404(b) evidence, statements by one defendant about loose ammunition, was too attenuated to fall into the government’s suggested pattern of false exculpatory statements to show consciousness of guilt – but that the error was harmless. The Court rejected that the government had improperly vouched for two witnesses by its examination of a detective. The Court found the alleged vouching was a reasonable response to rehabilitate a witness after it was suggested her grand jury testimony was coerced. The Court agreed that the reading of a commemorative poem about the victim, use of an enlarged photo of him made into a puzzle, and references to one of the defendants being in jail was “rife with misconduct, and to a degree that should not be tolerated by a district court.” However, the prejudice was minimal and did not merit reversal where the conduct was a brief part of the seventy five pages of closing argument and thousands of pages of trial testimony and the judge repeatedly instructed the jury not to be swayed by bias or sympathy. Finally, the Court concluded that the objective, specific intent of carjacking was correctly charged when examining the whole instruction even though a juror might have mistaken the challenged part of the charge as relying on the victim’s subjective perception (and thus allowing a conviction based on empty threats or bluffs).

Comments

  1. Interesting Blog, it is unbelievable how something so big is made by humans where would you start. Getting a career on the oil rigs was the best thing I ever did.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Double Jeopardy Claim Falls Short on Deferential Habeas Review

In the habeas matter of Wilkerson v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, Nos. 15-1598 & 15-2673, the Third Circuit defers to a state court determination that the defendant’s conviction of both an attempted murder count and an aggravated assault count based on the same altercation did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The evidence was that during the altercation, the defendant both struck the victim in the head with a gun and shot him in the chest. The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld consecutive sentences on the theory that the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find the striking to support one count and the shooting the other. Despite the jury instructions’ and verdict form’s failure to require each of these discrete findings, the Third Circuit holds that the state court’s reasoning was sound enough to withstand deferential review the AEDPA’s “clearly established Federal law” limitation. “[W]here the jury instructions were merely ambiguous and did not foreclose the jury…

Mailing Threatening Communications is a Crime of Violence and a Judicial Proposal for Reform of the Categorical Approach

In United States v. Chapman, __F.3d__, No. 16-1810, 2017 WL 3319287 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017), the Third Circuit held that mailing a letter containing any threat to injure the recipient or another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) qualifies as a crime of violence for the purposes of the career offender enhancements of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a).The Court acknowledged in a footnote that the analysis is the same for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871, threats against the president.


The Court began its analysis by reviewing the definition of “crime of violence” and specifically the meaning of the words “use” and “physical force.”Quoting United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014), and Tran v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 2005), it defined “use” as “the intentional employment of force, generally to obtain some end,” which conveys the notion that the thing used “has become the user’s instrument.” The Court confirmed the definition of “physical force” as “force ca…

A Traffic Stop Followed by a Summons is not an Intervening Arrest for Sentencing Guidelines Purposes

In United States v. Ley, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 5618617 (3d Cir., Nov. 22, 2017), the Third Circuit held that a traffic stop, followed by the issuance of a summons, is not an intervening arrest for the purpose of calculating a defendant’s prior convictions under USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2).   Defendant John Francis Ley received two speeding tickets on two consecutive days.  After writing each ticket, the police released Ley and informed him that the matter would proceed via summons.  No arrest was made and Ley was sentenced for both matters on the same day. The District Court, however, held that the issuance of the summons constituted an intervening arrest for the purposes of the Guidelines and each ticket therefore merited an individual criminal history point.  Ley appealed.  Looking at the ordinary meaning of both “arrest” and “summons,” as well as the Supreme Court’s history of distinguishing arrests from other interactions with law enforcement, the Third Circuit, joining three other circuits …