United States v. Awer, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Awer, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2068

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

KENT AWER,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Wi l l i am E. Smi t h, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eThompson, Bal dock, * and Sel ya,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Ar za R. Fel dman, wi t h whom Fel dman and Fel dman was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

Donal d C. Lockhar t , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Pet er F. Ner onha, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Oct ober 29, 2014

* Of t he Tent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/29

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

A f ederal j ur y convi ct ed Def endant Kent Awer of

possessi ng cocai ne base wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e. He appeal s.

Exer ci si ng j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C. 1291, we af f i r m.

I. The Facts1

A. The Malibu

I n t he cool , ear l y mor ni ng hour s of May 2, 2006, an

of f i cer wi t h t he East Provi dence Pol i ce Depar t ment not i ced a Chevy

Mal i bu dr i vi ng wel l over t he speed l i mi t i n Rhode I sl and. He

at t empt ed t o pul l t he car over . The Mal i bu, however , cont i nued

dr i vi ng f or a hal f - mi l e and changed l anes wi t hout si gnal i ng bef or e

f i nal l y submi t t i ng. The of f i cer t hen appr oached t he vehi cl e on

f oot , where he f ound Di ani kqua J ohnson behi nd t he wheel , Def endant

Kent Awer i n t he passenger seat , and a Mr . Si mmons i n t he back.

Upon quest i oni ng, J ohnson admi t t ed she di d not have a dr i ver ' s

l i cense. At t he same t i me, Def endant l eaned over J ohnson and t ol d

t he of f i cer he had r ent ed t he car and t hey wer e t r avel i ng f r om New

York Ci t y; he al so produced t he r ent al agr eement . Anot her of f i cer

soon ar r i ved, af t er whi ch t he of f i cer s ar r est ed J ohnson f or bei ng

an unl i censed dr i ver .

1 We pr esent t he f act s per t ai ni ng t o pr e- t r i al evi dent i ar yr ul i ngs, such as suppr essi on, i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t hedi st r i ct cour t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Oquendo- Ri vas, 750 F. 3d 12,16 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Because suf f i ci ency of t he t r i al evi dence i snot cont est ed, we pr esent a mor e neut r al descr i pt i on of t r i alf act s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Power s, 702 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

-2-


3/29

Whi l e secur i ng J ohnson, t he t wo of f i cer s not i ced

Def endant movi ng suspi ci ousl y back i n t he Mal i bu. 2 As a r esul t ,

t he of f i cer s conver ged on t he car ' s passenger si de t o i nvest i gat e.

The of f i cer who st opped t he car obser ved Def endant sweat i ng and

br eat hi ng heavi l y, so he asked Def endant t o exi t t he car .

Def endant r eached f or t he cent er consol e i nst ead, pr ompt i ng t he

of f i cer t o gr ab hi s hand and pul l hi mf r omt he car . Moment s l at er ,

Def endant admi t t ed he had mar i j uana i n hi s pocket . An of f i cer

f ound i t and ar r est ed Def endant . I n al l , onl y t hr ee mi nut es or so

passed bet ween t he i ni t i al st op and Def endant ' s ar r est .

That l ef t Si mmons, who di d not have a dr i ver ' s l i cense,

ei t her . Mor eover , t he Mal i bu' s rent al agr eement pr ohi bi t ed a t hi r d

par t y f r om dr i vi ng. Thus, t he of f i cer s r equest ed a t ow t r uck f or

t he Mal i bu. The of f i cer s sear ched t he car bef or e havi ng i t t owed

away. Dur i ng t hi s i nvent or y sear ch, t he of f i cer s f ound over 500

gr ams of cocai ne i nsi de an unl ocked bag i n t he t r unk. The bag al so

cont ai ned men' s cl othes and document s bear i ng Def endant ' s name.

Def endant was l at er i ndi ct ed i n t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and f or

2 At a suppr essi on hear i ng, one of f i cer t est i f i ed Def endantwas "movi ng ar ound i n t he passenger compar t ment " and "you coul d seehi s shoul der s movi ng f r om si de t o si de. " The ot her of f i cert est i f i ed Def endant "kept l ooki ng back at us, kept movi ng ar ound

t he vehi cl e. . . . He was bendi ng over f or war d. He was t ur ni ng t ot he l ef t , t ur ni ng t o t he r i ght , and i t appear ed t o me at t he t i met hat ei t her he was t r yi ng t o conceal somet hi ng or . . . r et r i evesomet hi ng. " At t r i al , t he l at t er of f i cer t est i f i ed Def endant " keptl ooki ng back t owar ds us. . . . He kept l ooki ng ar ound. He keptmaki ng movement s t o hi s l ef t and r i ght and kept bendi ng over . "Thi s wi l l come i nto pl ay l at er .

-3-


4/29

possessi ng wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e 50 gr ams or mor e of cocai ne

base i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) .

B. The Driver

Af t er her ar r est , J ohnson was pl aced i n a pol i ce st at i on

hol di ng cel l . That same day, an at t or ney vi si t ed her . J ohnson

t ol d t hi s at t or ney she was r esponsi bl e f or t he cocai ne i n t he

Mal i bu, not Def endant . The at t or ney advi sed J ohnson t o exer ci se

her r i ght not t o i ncri mi nat e her sel f . J ohnson' s si l ence, t he

at t or ney sai d, woul d be hel pf ul f or f ut ur e pl ea negot i at i ons.

Throughout her t i me i n pr i son, however , J ohnson openl y i ncul pat ed

her sel f numer ous t i mes, bot h wi t h handwr i t t en st at ement s and i n

conver sat i ons wi t h f el l ow i nmat es. Her f i r st handwr i t t en

st atement , whi ch a Rhode I sl and Depart ment of Corr ect i ons

l i eut enant not ar i zed on J une 25, 2006, r eads as f ol l ows:

To t he honor abl e Cour t ' s

I Di ani kqua J ohnson woul d l i ke t ospeak on my behal f . I Di ani kqua J ohnson wantt o not i f y Pr ovi dence Super i or Cour t I t akesol e Responsi bi l i t y of t hi s char ge I am bei ngchar ge wi t h ( manuf act ur i ng/ possessi ng/ del i ver yof cocai ne. ) Mr . Si mmons and Mr . Awer t hat ' sBei ng char ge wi t h me had no knowl edge of mycri mi nal acti vi t y. I al so woul d l i ke t o t hankt he cour t s f or t aki ng t i me out t o l i st en t ot hi s mat t er

Tr uthf ul l yyour sDi ani kqua J ohnson

Her second st atement , whi ch was not notar i zed or dated, r eads:

-4-


5/29

I Di ani kqua J ohnson, woul d l i ke t o makea st atement on my behal f . The charges I ambei ng char ge wi t h Mr . Awer and Mr . Si mmons It ake f ul l Responsi bi l i t y of t hose char ges. Iact ed al one. They di dn' t have no knowl edge ofmy cr i mi nal act i vi t y.

On May 01, 2006, I cal l ed Mr . Awer t omake sure he coul d gi ve me a r i de t o Mass. Hest at ed t hat he wi l l gi ve me a Ri de. And woul dI Be abl e t o dr i ve Because he' s Real t i er d. It ol d hi myes. Thi s was around 8 pm. 15 mi nut esl at er he cal l t o l et me know he was downst ai r si n t he par ki ng l ot of my gr andmot her pr oj ect s( t ompki ns) . When I Reached the car Awer was al r eadyRel axi ng i n t he passenger seat . I put my bagsdown by t he t r unk and I wal k over t o thedr i ver si de t o open t he door so I can pop t het r unck on t he car key chai n. Whi l e I was att he t r unk of t he car , I t ook t he packages ofdrugs wer e bei ng char ge out my hand Bag thenput t hem i n Awer ' s Bl ack Ascot Bag. Because If el t hi s Bag had mor e spot s t o hi de t he dr ugsi n i t and i t di d. I t hen got i n t he car andMr . Awer t ol d me where t o go t o pi ck hi sf r i end Mr . Si mmons up Bef ore l eavi ng f or Mass. Pi cked hi mup on Wi l ougbi e ave at 9 pm. I Gott he Dr ugs f r om my uncl e. Wel l I st ol e t hem; Iknow we needed t he money so I f i gur e i nst eadof my uncl e usi ng al l of t hem, I can get r i dof some. Sel l a l i t t l e and us a l i t t l e.

J ohnson al so r epeated her st or y t o a l at er - appoi nted at t or ney.

Ti me and agai n, J ohnson expr essed i ntense wor r y t hat Def endant

woul d be hel d r esponsi bl e f or her act i ons. She even r ef used a pl ea

agr eement because she f ear ed hur t i ng Def endant .

Tr agi cal l y, i n an appar ent l y unr el at ed i mbrogl i o, J ohnson

was mur dered bef or e she coul d appear at Def endant ' s t r i al .

-5-


6/29

C. The Evidence

Pr i or t o Def endant ' s t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t decl i ned

t o suppr ess t he cocai ne f ound i n t he Mal i bu' s t r unk because: ( 1)

J ohnson' s speedi ng j ust i f i ed t he i ni t i al st op, ( 2) t he f or ce used

t o pul l Def endant f r omt he car was r easonabl e and di d not t r ansf or m

t he encount er i nt o a de f act o ar r est , and ( 3) t he of f i cer s'

deci si on t o i mpound t he Mal i bu was r easonabl e. See Uni t ed St ates

v. Awer , CR. No. 06061S, 2007 WL 172258 ( D. R. I . J an. 23, 2007) .

Lat er , t he di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed J ohnson' s handwr i t t en

st at ement s under Fed. R. Evi d. 804( b) ( 3) , whi ch al l ows f or

i nt r oduct i on of cer t ai n st at ement s agai nst cr i mi nal i nt er est . 3 The

cour t excl uded t est i mony f r om J ohnson' s t wo l awyer s, however ,

because her st at ement s t o t hem wer e not agai nst her cr i mi nal

i nt er est at t he t i me she made t hem. The cour t al so hel d t hi s

t est i mony was not admi ssi bl e under t he Rul e 807 "r esi dual " hear say

except i on because i t woul d be "mer el y cumul at i ve. " See Uni t ed

St at es v. Awer , 502 F. Supp. 2d 273 ( D. R. I . 2007) .

D. The Trial

Def endant ' s t r i al l ast ed t wo days. Near t he begi nni ng,

t he di st r i ct cour t t ol d t he j ur or s, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat

"st atement s, argument s, and quest i ons by l awyer s ar e not evi dence"

3 I n i t s or der , t he di st r i ct cour t r epeat edl y r ef er r ed t o t headmi ssi bi l i t y of J ohnson' s wr i t t en "st at ement , " si ngul ar . Thatsai d, bot h of t he above wr i t t en st at ement s wer e admi t t ed at t r i al .

-6-


7/29

and t hat t hey shoul d di sr egar d any st at ement or i t emof evi dence i f

t he cour t i nst r uct ed t hem t o do so.

The Government cal l ed a number of East Pr ovi dence pol i ce

of f i cer s t o t est i f y, i ncl udi ng t wo of f i cer s who i nt er vi ewed

Def endant at t he pol i ce st at i on on t he day of hi s ar r est . Bot h

of f i cer s t est i f i ed t hey r eci t ed Def endant ' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s

t o hi m, and Def endant af f i r med he underst ood t hese r i ght s.

Af t er war d, t hey test i f i ed, Def endant sai d he pur chased t he cocai ne

i n New Yor k Ci t y. He t hen gave a f ew det ai l s about hi s cocai ne

suppl i er and met hods bef or e endi ng t he i nt er vi ew, accordi ng t o t he

of f i cer s. On cr oss- exami nat i on, t he of f i cer s conceded t hey had not

r ecor ded t he i nt er vi ew, handwr i t t en not es f r om t he encount er di d

not ment i on Def endant admi t t i ng to possessi on of t he cocai ne, and

Def endant had never i n wr i t i ng wai ved hi s r i ght s or cl ai med

possessi on of t he cocai ne ( al t hough t hey st i l l mai nt ai ned he had

done so ver bal l y) .

Anot her East Pr ovi dence of f i cer t est i f i ed l ast f or t he

Gover nment , as an exper t wi t ness. On di r ect exami nat i on, he sai d

one method dr ug deal ers use t o avoi d detect i on i s t o "have f emal es

and chi l dr en i n t he car . " On cr oss- exami nat i on, he conceded pol i ce

di d not f i nger pr i nt any of t he i t ems sei zed f r om Def endant ' s car .

On r e- di r ect , t he pr osecut or asked hi m why no f i nger pr i nt s wer e

t aken. The of f i cer r esponded, "We had t he Def endant r ent ed t he

vehi cl e, t he dr ugs wer e f ound i n hi s bag wi t h hi s paper wor k and

-7-


8/29

i nf ormat i on, and he gave a conf essi on. " Def ense counsel

i mmedi at el y obj ect ed t o t he t er m"conf essi on. " The cour t pr ompt l y

i nst r uct ed t he j ur or s t o di sr egar d t hat t er m, as t hey ( and not t he

wi t ness) wer e t he ul t i mat e deci der s of how t o char act er i ze

Def endant ' s st at ement s at t he pol i ce st at i on.

The prosecutor was t hen al l owed t o ask anew about why

f i nger pr i nt s wer e not sought . Thi s t i me, t he of f i cer r esponded:

The di f f er ent f act or s r egar di ng t he evi dence.The Def endant , t he r ent al car was i n t heDef endant ' s name, t he dr ugs were f ound i n hi sbag wi t h mal e' s cl ot hi ng and i t ems ofpaper wor k i n hi s name. The pr obabi l i t y- - al so,t he st at ement t hat was gi ven. The pr obabi l i t yof f i ndi ng f i nger pr i nt s i n t he hundr eds ofdr ug cases I ' ve been i nvol ved i n, we' ve got t enf i nger pr i nt s f our t i mes. The f act or s I namedbef orehand, t hat ' s what we woul d cal l a sl am-dunk i n t he nar cot i c i nvest i gat i on wor l d. Sowe di dn' t f i nger pr i nt .

Def ense counsel agai n qui ckl y obj ect ed, t hi s t i me t o "sl am- dunk. "

The cour t prompt l y t ol d t he j ury t o di sr egar d t hat t er m, as wel l .

Moment s l at er , af t er t he pr osecut i on had rest ed,

Def endant moved f or a mi st r i al . Def ense counsel cont ended "sl am-

dunk" was "an ext r emel y i nappr opr i at e and ext r emel y pr ej udi ci al

comment , " especi al l y comi ng f r om an exper t , and "a bel l l i ke t hat

cannot be unr ung" wi t h a caut i onar y i nst r uct i on. I n r esponse, t he

Government obser ved Def endant had br oached t he f i ngerpr i nt i ssue,

and i t argued a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on woul d suf f i ce. The cour t ,

descr i bi ng t he comment as " ver y unf or t unat e and i nappr opr i at e, "

r equest ed over ni ght br i ef i ng on t he mi st r i al quest i on because " I

-8-


9/29

don' t know whet her an i nst r uct i on i s goi ng t o be suf f i ci ent . " I n

t he i nt er i m, t he cour t agai n i nst r uct ed t he j ur y "t o di sr egar d t hat

st at ement , and di sr egar d t he vi ew of [ t he of f i cer ] t hat t he case

was a so- cal l ed sl am- dunk. " The cour t t hen r ei t er at ed t he j ur y' s

r ol e and concl uded by emphasi zi ng t hat t he remark "shoul d have no

bear i ng on your del i ber at i ons i n t hi s mat t er . "

The next mor ni ng, t he cour t deni ed t he mi st r i al mot i on,

r el yi ng on pr ecedent i ndi cat i ng t hat pr ompt cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons

can sat i sf act or i l y amel i or at e t he i mpact of i mpr oper t est i mony i n

al l but t he most pr ej udi ci al of ci r cumst ances. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 118485 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . Her e,

t he cour t not ed, mi st r i al was not appr opr i at e because " t hi s j ur y i s

a sophi st i cat ed j ury, " t he comment was " r andom, " and the comment

coul d cut agai nst t he Government because t he j ur y mi ght vi ew i t as

an i l l egi t i mat e at t empt t o "shor e up" a f l awed i nvest i gat i on

pr ocess. "The bot t oml i ne, " t he cour t st at ed, "i s I t hi nk t hi s has

been a ver y f ai r t r i al al l t he way t hr ough . . . . "

For hi s def ense, Def endant i nt r oduced J ohnson' s

handwr i t t en st atement s and t he t est i mony of one of J ohnson' s

cel l mat es and t he of f i cer who not ar i zed her f i r st st at ement . The

cel l mat e t est i f i ed she and J ohnson wer e f r i ends and she " t hought

[ J ohnson] was honest . " She al so t est i f i ed J ohnson was of t en

emot i onal and upset , and J ohnson had asked her f or advi ce about how

-9-


10/29

t o deal wi t h a di st r essi ng si t uat i on. Accor di ng t o t he cel l mat e,

she advi sed J ohnson t o make a notar i zed st atement on t he subj ect .

Dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s, t he pr osecut or t ol d t he j ur or s

t hey had l ear ned, f r omt he of f i cer ' s exper t t est i mony, " t hat a good

way t o t r ansport dr ugs i s t o put a woman i n t he car , have a woman

dr i vi ng t he dr ugs. " Af t er t he pr osecut or f i ni shed cl osi ng, def ense

counsel obj ect ed t o t hi s r emar k. The cour t i nf or med t he pr osecut or

she had i ndeed mi sst at ed t he exper t ' s t est i mony: "What he test i f i ed

t o was i t ' s a common t act i c t o have a f emal e and chi l dr en i n t he

car , " t he cour t emphasi zed, "not dr i vi ng t he car . So t hi s has t o

be cor r ect ed. " Def ense counsel qui ckl y moved f or a mi st r i al , whi ch

t he cour t j ust as qui ckl y deni ed. The cour t t hen expl ai ned t o t he

j ury how t he prosecutor had mi sst at ed t he exper t ' s t est i mony.

Bef or e di smi ssi ng t he j ur y t o del i ber at e, t he cour t agai n

gave i nst r uct i ons on t he exper t ' s obj ect ed- t o st at ement s:

Now, I want t o remi nd you at t hi s poi nt t hatan exper t wi t ness or any wi t ness, f or t hatmat t er , i s not ent i t l ed t o gi ve an opi ni on ont he over al l st r engt h of t he Gover nment ' s case.No wi t ness i s ent i t l ed t o expr ess such anopi ni on. That i s t he j ur y' s j ob. And you' l lr ecal l t hat t hi s i s why dur i ng t he cour se oft he t r i al I i nst r uct ed you t o di sr egar d ast atement made by [ t he exper t ] i n whi ch heexpr essed an opi ni on about t he st r engt h of t hecase. I gave you an expl i ci t i nst r uct i on t o

di sr egar d t hat opi ni on and I st r uck hi st est i mony. . . .

By sust ai ni ng t he obj ect i on, I ' ve det er mi nedt hat t he evi dence shoul d not be consi dered byyou. And i f I st r uck t est i mony t hat was

-10-


11/29

st at ed by t he wi t ness, you ar e t o di sr egar di t . . . .

Now, you hear d evi dence i n thi s case that KentAwer , t he Def endant , made a st atement i n whi cht he Government cl ai ms he admi t t ed cer t ai n

f act s. I t i s f or you t o deci de, one, whet herMr . Awer made t hat st atement ; and two, i f so,how much wei ght t o gi ve i t . I n maki ng t hosedeci si ons you shoul d consi der al l of t heevi dence about t he st at ement , i ncl udi ng t heci r cumst ances under whi ch t he st at ement mayhave been made and any f act s or ci r cumst ancest endi ng t o cor r obor at e or cont r adi ct t hever si on of event s descr i bed i n t he st at ement .

The j ury ul t i mat el y convi ct ed Def endant . A week l at er ,

Def endant moved f or a new t r i al based on t he expert ' s and

pr osecut or ' s r emar ks. The cour t deni ed t hi s mot i on. Al l er r or s,

t he cour t f ound, wer e addr essed i mmedi at el y wi t h apt j ur y

i nst r uct i ons, and t he st at ement s' i mpact was negl i gi bl e. Al so, t he

pr osecut or ' s st at ement was "cl ear l y not i nt ent i onal and, i f

anyt hi ng, [ was] l i kel y t he pr oduct of t he mer e ' hast e or conf usi on'

t hat i s nor mal i n t he hur l y- bur l y of t r i al . " Thus, combi ned or

al one, t he er r or s di d not j ust i f y a new t r i al . See Uni t ed St at es

v. Awer , CR. No. 06- 061S, 2007 WL 2206789 ( D. R. I . J ul y 30, 2007) .

E. The Aftermath

Bef or e sent enci ng, t he cour t ( at Def endant ' s r equest )

cont i nued t he case f or over f i ve year s, i n par t t o al l ow Def endant

t o chal l enge pr i or convi ct i ons that r equi r ed a l i f e sent ence. At

l ong l ast , on August 16, 2013, t he cour t sent enced Def endant t o 20

year s i n j ai l . Def endant appeal ed, r ai si ng t hr ee i ssues f or us to

-11-


12/29

deci de. Fi r st , he cont ends t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o

suppr ess t he cocai ne f ound i n t he t r unk of hi s car pur suant t o the

Four t h Amendment . Second, he argues t he cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on by excl udi ng t he t est i mony of J ohnson' s t wo l awyer s.

Thi r d, he asser t s t he cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by not decl ar i ng

a mi st r i al based on cer t ai n st at ement s made at t r i al .

II. The Cocaine

Def endant f i r st ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t , per t he Four t h

Amendment , shoul d have suppr essed t he cocai ne f ound i n the Mal i bu' s

t r unk. "I n r evi ewi ng a di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o

suppr ess, we r evi ew t he f act s ' i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he mot i on, and we r evi ew t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act and credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons f or cl ear

er r or . ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Br ake, 666 F. 3d 800, 804 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . "We r evi ew de novo any concl usi ons of l aw. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Mouscar dy, 722 F. 3d 68, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

The Four t h Amendment enshr i nes t he peopl e' s r i ght " t o be

secur e i n t hei r per sons, houses, paper s, and ef f ect s, agai nst

unr easonabl e sear ches and sei zures. " Def endant bear s t he bur den of

showi ng a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on here, Uni t ed St ates v. Werr a,

638 F. 3d 326, 330 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , and he posi t s t wo t heor i es f or

why t he cour t shoul d have suppr essed t he cocai ne. 4

4 I n hi s openi ng br i ef , Def endant i ni t i al l y pr ovi des onl y onet heor y f or excl usi on- - i . e. , pol i ce de f act o ar r est ed hi m wi t houtpr obabl e cause. A cl oser r eadi ng of hi s br i ef s, however , al so

-12-


13/29

A. Reasonable Suspicion to Investigate Further

Under wel l - set t l ed l aw, pol i ce can per mi ssi bl y det ai n "an

aut omobi l e and i t s occupant s pendi ng i nqui r y i nt o a vehi cul ar

vi ol at i on. " Ar i zona v. J ohnson, 555 U. S. 323, 327 ( 2009)

( r ef er enci ng Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968) ) . Accor di ngl y,

Def endant admi t s pol i ce l awf ul l y st opped hi s Mal i bu f or speedi ng.

He al so concedes pol i ce pr oper l y ar r est ed J ohnson. He onl y ar gues

pol i ce di d not have suf f i ci ent r easons af t er J ohnson' s ar r est t o

j ust i f y det ai ni ng hi m any f ur t her . The onl y l awf ul opt i on

avai l abl e t o pol i ce af t er J ohnson' s ar r est , he asser t s, was t o l et

hi m go; as such, t he subsequent i nvest i gat i on was an i l l egal

"f i shi ng expedi t i on. " The l aw and t he f act s bel i e t hi s cont ent i on.

To begi n, t he Supreme Cour t has made i t per f ect l y cl ear

t hat "dur i ng a l awf ul t r af f i c st op an of f i cer may or der a passenger

out of t he car as a pr ecaut i onar y measure, wi t hout r easonabl e

suspi ci on t hat t he passenger poses a saf et y r i sk. " Br endl i n v.

Cal i f or ni a, 551 U. S. 249, 258 ( 2007) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng

Maryl and v. Wi l son, 519 U. S. 408, 41415 ( 1997) ) . Here, we have an

undi sput edl y l awf ul t r af f i c st op, and we have pol i ce or der i ng

Def endant , a passenger , out of t he car . Thus, r easonabl e suspi ci on

was al most cer t ai nl y not needed i n t hi s si t uat i on.

r eveal s t he r easonabl e suspi ci on t heor y det ai l ed bel ow. Whet herDef endant r ai sed t hi s addi t i onal t heor y at t r i al i s uncl ear ; out ofan abundance of caut i on we anal yze and di smi ss i t here.

-13-


14/29

That sai d, Def endant cont ends t he i ni t i al st op was

compl ete once J ohnson was ar r est ed, and reasonabl e suspi ci on was

t her ef or e essent i al t o cont i nue i nvest i gat i ng hi m. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Br anch, 537 F. 3d 328, 337 ( 4t h Ci r . 2008) ( " [ R] easonabl e

suspi ci on of a cr i me i s necessar y t o ext end a t r af f i c st op f or

i nvest i gat or y pur poses. " ( emphasi s added) ) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v.

Sower s, 136 F. 3d 24, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( Cour t s must det er mi ne

"whet her t he act i ons under t aken by t he of f i cer f ol l owi ng t he st op

wer e r easonabl y r esponsi ve t o t he ci r cumst ances j ust i f yi ng t he st op

i n t he f i r st pl ace, as augment ed by i nf ormat i on gl eaned by t he

of f i cer dur i ng t he st op. " ( emphasi s added) ) . The r ecor d does not

suppor t t hi s cl ai m. Onl y t hr ee or so mi nut es passed- - at most - -

between t he Mal i bu pul l i ng over and Def endant ' s bei ng ordered out

of t he car . Thi s st r ongl y suggest s, t o put i t mi l dl y, t hat t he

i ni t i al st op was ongoi ng. Mor eover , t he of f i cer s not i ced Def endant

movi ng ar ound whi l e t hey wer e secur i ng J ohnson, not af t er .

Fi nal l y, al t hough t he recor d i ndi cat es an of f i cer asked Def endant

f or hi s dr i ver ' s l i cense, not hi ng shows Def endant was abl e t o

pr oduce a l i cense. 5 Thus, t he i ni t i al st op coul d not have been

over , as t he of f i cer s st i l l had t o f i gur e out what t o do wi t h t he

Mal i bu when t hey had no l i censed or aut hor i zed dr i ver on hand.

5 To t he cont r ar y, one of f i cer t est i f i ed i f Def endant hadpr oduced t he l i cense he woul d have not ed t hi s i n hi s repor t . Theof f i cer made no such note, suggest i ng no l i cense was pr oduced.

-14-


15/29

Regar dl ess, t he of f i cer s' t el l i ng Def endant t o exi t t he

vehi cl e was r easonabl e. At l east s i x f act s, t aken t oget her , poi nt

t o possi bl e cr i mi nal act i vi t y on t he par t of Def endant : ( 1) t he

i ni t i al vi ol at i on ( t r avel i ng wel l over t he speed l i mi t ) ; ( 2) t he

subsequent vi ol at i on ( i gnor i ng t he or der t o pul l over ) ; ( 3)

Def endant ' s appar ent cont r ol of t he Mal i bu ( as evi denced by hi s

t al ki ng over J ohnson and t he rent al agr eement ) ; ( 4) Def endant ' s

movement s whi l e of f i cer s wer e away ( suspi ci ous) ; ( 5) Def endant ' s

vi sage when of f i cer s r et ur ned ( heavy br eat hi ng and sweat i ng) ; and

( 6) t he t i me of day ( j ust past mi dni ght ) . These f act s ar e

suf f i ci ent . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Chaney, 584 F. 3d 20, 26

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "Here, t he of f i cer ' s i ni t i al i nqui r i es i nt o

Chaney' s i dent i t y t ook at most a mi nut e or t wo and di d not

measurabl y extend t he dur at i on of t he st op. Any addi t i onal del ay,

i ncl udi ng t hat at t r i but abl e to the recor ds check, was i ndependent l y

war r ant ed by t he of f i cer ' s r easonabl e suspi ci on, based on Chaney' s

i mpl ausi bl e answers and nervous demeanor , t hat Chaney was gi vi ng a

f al se name and mi ght be i nvol ved i n ot her cr i mi nal act i vi t y. "

( emphasi s added) ) . Mor eover , t hese f act s di st i ngui sh Uni t ed St at es

v. McKoy, 428 F. 3d 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , whi ch i s t he pr i mar y case

Def endant r el i es upon. I n McKoy, we hel d a person' s nervousness

and movement i n a car par ked i n a hi gh- cr i me area were not enough

t o j ust i f y a Ter r y f r i sk. See i d. at 41. Al t hough t he pr esent

si t uat i on bear s some r esembl ance t o McKoy, unl i ke McKoy the

-15-


16/29

of f i cer s her e wer e f aced wi t h mor e than j ust nervousness and

f ur t i ve movement s i n quest i onabl e sur r oundi ngs. Chi ef l y, t hey wer e

deal i ng wi t h a car t hat had at t empt ed t o evade pol i ce af t er bei ng

caught speedi ng, and wi t h a man who appear ed t o cont r ol t hat car .

That pushes t hi s case beyond McKoy.

Def endant at t acks t hese f act s on an ar r ay of gr ounds.

For st ar t er s, he at t empt s t o pawn of f t he hal f - mi l e pol i ce evasi on

on J ohnson: "she was t he dr i ver " and he was "merel y a passenger , "

he cl ai ms, "who had no cont r ol over when t he vehi cl e st opped. "

Thus, accor di ng t o Def endant , i t was cl ear er r or f or t he di st r i ct

cour t t o take pol i ce evasi on i nt o account when anal yzi ng t he

deci si on t o i nvest i gat e hi m. I f t r ue, t hough, t hen why di d

Def endant at t empt t o monopol i ze t he conver sat i on wi t h t he i ni t i al

of f i cer ? And was i t not hi s r ent al car ( as he ot her wi se

st eadf ast l y mai nt ai ns) ? Coul d not an of f i cer r easonabl y sur mi se

t hat i f Def endant was doi ng t he t al ki ng and i n possessi on of t he

car t hen i t was qui t e possi bl e he was al so i n cont r ol of J ohnson' s

dr i vi ng? We t hi nk so.

Def endant al so ci t es t he di st r i ct cour t ' s vocal

"skept i ci sm" about t he of f i cer s' t est i mony. Even i f t he cour t was

skept i cal at hear i ngs- - f or exampl e, about Def endant ' s prof use

sweat i ng- - i t r esol ved t hese doubt s i n i t s wr i t t en f act f i ndi ngs i n

f avor of t he of f i cer s. See, e. g. , Awer , 2007 WL 172258, at *1

nn. 12 ( f i ndi ng t he of f i cer s' t est i mony credi bl e) . Our j ob i s t o

-16-


17/29

det er mi ne whet her t he cour t ' s f act f i ndi ngs and credi bi l i t y

det er mi nat i ons ar e cl ear l y wr ong, not t o deci de such quest i ons de

novo or di vi ne t he cour t ' s i nner t hought s f r om t r anscr i pt s of t he

hear i ngs.

Next , Def endant assai l s i n a mi shmash of ways t he

of f i cer s' r el i ance on hi s "suspi ci ous" movement s. Def endant f i r st

pr ot est s because t he i ni t i al of f i cer f ai l ed t o see any f ur t i ve

movement s f r omDef endant when he was f ol l owi ng t he vehi cl e. Thi s

i s t r i vi al , however , as a l ack of suspi ci ous act i vi t y at one

i nst ant har dl y al t er s t he exi st ence of suspi ci ous behavi or at a

l at er i nst ant . What of f i cer s di d see and r el y upon i s t he cr ux of

t he mat t er . 6 Def endant next cont ends hi s movement s wer e not

suspi ci ous because he was sear chi ng f or hi s l i cense. Thi s i s sheer

specul at i on, wi t h no basi s i n t he r ecor d. Thi r d, Def endant

at t empt s t o di st i ngui sh cases al l owi ng pol i ce t o r el y on f ur t i ve

movement s, see, e. g. , Si br on v. New Yor k, 392 U. S. 40, 66- 67 ( 1968)

( a suspect ' s del i beratel y f ur t i ve movement s when appr oached by

pol i ce of f i cer s "ar e st r ong i ndi ci a of mens r ea") , by cont endi ng

f ur t i veness r equi r es more t han merel y movi ng a shoul der or bendi ng

and t ur ni ng. As det ai l ed above, however , t he of f i cer s t est i f i ed

Def endant moved hi s shoul ders, moved about t he vehi cl e, kept

6 Thi s same pr i nci pl e squel ches a number of other "absence ofevi dence" obj ect i ons r ai sed by Def endant ( e. g. , Def endant ar gues i tmat t er s t hat of f i cer s di dn' t see hi mbr eat hi ng heavi l y or sweat i ngwhen they f i r st appr oached the vehi cl e) .

-17-


18/29

l ooki ng ar ound, t ur ned l ef t and r i ght , and bent over f or war d as i f

he was t r yi ng t o conceal or r et r i eve somet hi ng. See supr a not e 1.

Thus, even assumi ng Def endant i s cor r ect about t he l aw on t hi s

poi nt , hi s own act i ons st i l l doom hi m. I n t he end, t he di st r i ct

cour t f ound t hese var i ous movement s were "suspi ci ous, " Awer , 2007

WL 172258 at *1, *4, and we see no basi s f or cl ear er r or .

To r ecap, even i f r easonabl e suspi ci on was r equi r ed- -

whi ch i t l i kel y was not - - t he f act s her e gave of f i cer s "at l east ' a

mi ni mal l evel of obj ecti ve j ust i f i cat i on' f or t he bel i ef t hat

cr i mi nal act i vi t y [ was] af oot . " Br anch, 537 F. 3d at 337 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

B. De Facto Arrest

Def endant ' s second ar gument f or why t he di st r i ct cour t

shoul d have suppr essed t he cocai ne i s t hat he was pl aced under de

f act o ar r est when of f i cer s f or ci bl y r emoved hi m f r om t he Mal i bu.

Thi s ar r est was unl awf ul , Def endant cont ends, because t he of f i cer s

l acked pr obabl e cause. Even i f pr obabl e cause was l acki ng at t hi s

poi nt , however , hi s r emoval f r omt he car was not a de f act o ar r est .

A detent i on becomes a de f acto ar r est when " ' a reasonabl e

per son i n t he suspect ' s posi t i on woul d have under st ood hi s

si t uat i on' . . . t o be t ant amount t o bei ng under ar r est . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Zapat a, 18 F. 3d 971, 975 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( quot i ng

Ber kemer v. McCar t y, 468 U. S. 420, 442 ( 1984) ) . "But . . . t he

mer e pr esence of ar r est - l i ke f eat ur es i s not f at al t o t he val i di t y

-18-


19/29

of a par t i cul ar st op. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pont oo, 666 F. 3d 20, 30

( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Even a si gni f i cant use of f or ce, i f pr opor t i onal

t o t he ci r cumst ances, does not t r ansf or ma br i ef det ent i on t o a de

f act o ar r est r equi r i ng pr obabl e cause. See i d.

Agai n, " t he [ Supr eme] Cour t has hel d t hat of f i cers may

or der t he dr i ver and any passenger s t o get out of t he car unt i l t he

t r af f i c st op i s compl et e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Fer nandez, 600 F. 3d

56, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Mar yl and, 519 U. S. at 415) .

Fur t hermore, we have hel d t hat when a "def endant r ef used to accede

t o [ an of f i cer ' s] r equest [ t o exi t a vehi cl e] , t he of f i cer s wer e

const i t ut i onal l y ent i t l ed t o r emove hi m f r om t he vehi cl e . . . . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Rui d az, 529 F. 3d 25, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . We

expl ai ned above t hat t he of f i cer s l awf ul l y or der ed Def endant t o

exi t hi s rent al car . And, as t he di st r i ct cour t ast ut el y obser ved,

t he r i ght t o or der a passenger out of a vehi cl e woul d be a hol l ow

one i ndeed i f pol i ce coul d not use a r easonabl e amount of f or ce t o

ensure compl i ance wi t h such an order . Thus, f orce was pr oper her e.

To t he ext ent Def endant cl ai ms t he f or ce was excessi ve

under t he ci r cumst ances, we cannot agr ee. The di st r i ct cour t f ound

t hat , r at her t han cooper at e wi t h t he or der t o get out of t he car ,

Def endant i nst ead "made a f ast mot i on t owar ds hi s l ef t si de and t he

cent er consol e ar ea. " Awer , 2007 WL 172258, at *1. The of f i cer ,

accor di ng t o t he cour t , t hen "used j ust enough f or ce" t o pul l

def endant f r om t he car . I d. at *4. We see no basi s f or cl ear

-19-


20/29

er r or on t hese poi nt s. Def endant asser t s he was "vi ol ent l y

ext r act ed" f r om t he car . But t he amount of "vi ol ence" used was

pl ai nl y r easonabl e gi ven Def endant ' s act i ons. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Car r i gan, 724 F. 3d 39, 4748 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( no de f act o ar r est

wher e t wo of f i cer s "t ook physi cal cont r ol " of t he suspect , put hi m

on t he gr ound on hi s s t omach, and handcuf f ed hi mbecause t hey "had

a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat such measures were necessary to pr otect

t hei r own saf et y") . As such, t hi s f or ce di d not t r ansf or m an

ot her wi se l awf ul i nt er act i on i nt o a de f act o ar r est . See Pont oo,

666 F. 3d at 31. Accor di ngl y, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al

of t he mot i on t o suppr ess.

III. Johnson's Lawyers

Def endant next ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on by not al l owi ng J ohnson' s at t or neys t o t est i f y about her

st at ement s cl ai mi ng r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he dr ugs. Thi s evi dence,

he cont ends, shoul d have been admi t t ed under ei t her Rul e 804( b) ( 3)

or Rul e 807 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. "We r evi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs f or abuse of di scr et i on. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Moj i ca- Baez, 229 F. 3d 292, 300 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

A. Rule 804(b)(3)

Hear say i s a decl ar ant ' s out - of - cour t st at ement of f er ed

t o pr ove t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed. Fed. R. Evi d. 801.

Wi t h cer t ai n except i ons, hear say i s not admi ssi bl e i n f eder al

cour t . Fed. R. Evi d. 802. One except i on i s Rul e 804( b) ( 3) , under

-20-


21/29

whi ch hear say i s admi ssi bl e i f t he decl ar ant i s unavai l abl e t o

t est i f y, and the st atement - - when made- - woul d have t ended t o expose

t he decl ar ant t o cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y ( among ot her r equi r ement s not

i n di sput e) . We l ook at al l sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances t o det er mi ne

whet her a st at ement was agai nst a decl ar ant ' s cr i mi nal i nt er est .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Pel l et i er , 666 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

The di st r i ct cour t f ound J ohnson' s st at ements t o her

at t orneys coul d not come i n under Rul e 804( b) ( 3) because t hey woul d

not have exposed her t o cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y. We agr ee. The l i mi t ed

case l aw on poi nt counsel s f or excl usi on, and l ogi cal l y so. See,

e. g. , Revel s v. Di gugl i el mo, No. Ci v. A. 03- 5412, 2005 WL 1677951,

at *7 ( E. D. Penn. J ul y 18, 2005) ( unpubl i shed) ( st at e cour t

"cor r ect l y hel d t hat . . . Mr . Per r i n' s communi cat i ons wi t h hi s

l awyer . . . wer e pr ot ect ed by at t or ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege and

t her ef or e not agai nst hi s penal i nt er est ") ; Peopl e v. J ohnson, 482

N. Y. S. 2d 188, 189 (N. Y. App. Di v. 1984) ( " [ A] st at ement made t o an

at t or ney i s conf i dent i al and, t her ef or e, not adver se t o one' s penal

i nt er est . . . . ") . I ndeed, t he pr i mar y case r el i ed upon by

Def endant , Mor al es v. Por t uondo, 154 F. Supp. 2d 706 ( S. D. N. Y.

2001) , act ual l y counsel s agai nst hi s posi t i on on Rul e 804( b) ( 3) .

I n Mor al es a man named For nes conf essed gui l t t o an at t orney named

Ser vi no, and t he cour t f ound t hi s conf essi on was agai nst For nes'

penal i nt er est . I d. at 712, 72526. But Ser vi no was not Fornes'

at t or ney; r at her , he repr esent ed Mor al es, who was char ged wi t h t he

-21-


22/29

cr i me t o whi ch For nes conf essed. I d. at 712. I n shor t , no

conf i dent i al i t y or pr i vi l ege was i n pl ay because For nes "bel i eved

[ Ser vi no] woul d t ake t he i nf or mat i on t o t he pr osecut i ng

aut hor i t i es. " I d. at 726. Fur t her mor e, For nes conf essed t o

another at t orney ( named Cohen) and t he cour t f ound t hi s conf essi on

was not agai nst For nes' cr i mi nal i nt er est because For nes had sought

Cohen out f or l egal advi ce and t hus " f ul l y expect ed" t hat "Cohen

woul d keep hi s conver sat i ons . . . conf i dent i al . " I d. at 71314,

726. Agai n, on Rul e 804( b) ( 3) , Mor al es i n no way f avor s Def endant .

Never t hel ess, Def endant put s f or t h sever al addi t i onal

argument s f or why J ohnson' s s t atement s t o her at t orneys were

agai nst her cri mi nal i nt er est . None of t hemhol d wat er . Fi r st , he

cont ends we must t ake "cont ext " i nt o account , see Wi l l i amson v.

Uni t ed St at es, 512 U. S. 594, 603 ( 1994) ( " [ W] het her a st at ement i s

sel f - i ncul pat or y or not can onl y be det er mi ned by vi ewi ng i t i n

cont ext . " ) , t he per t i nent cont ext ( accor di ng t o Def endant ) bei ng

t hat J ohnson made i dent i cal st at ement s t o ot her peopl e t hat wer e

agai nst her cr i mi nal i nt er est . Def endant essent i al l y asks us t o

adopt a sor t of l egal osmosi s: J ohnson made sever al st at ement s

agai nst her cr i mi nal i nt er est , so any st at ement cont ai ni ng t he same

i nf or mat i on was agai nst her cr i mi nal i nt er est as wel l . Thi s i s

nonsensi cal , as i t woul d r equi r e us t o do t he ver y t hi ng Def endant

ur ges us not t o do- - i gnore cont ext . Al t hough J ohnson made a number

-22-


23/29

of si mi l ar st at ement s, t hose made i n t he cont ext of t he at t or ney-

cl i ent pr i vi l ege wer e si mpl y not agai nst her cr i mi nal i nt er est .

Def endant t r i es a di f f er ent t wi st al ong t he same l i nes.

Even i f J ohnson' s s t at ement s t o her at t or neys wer e conf i dent i al , he

asser t s, her l at er st at ement s t o t hi r d par t i es wai ved t he at t or ney-

cl i ent pr i vi l ege, subj ect i ng her t o cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y. See I n r e

Keeper of t he Recor ds ( Gr and J ur y Subpoena Addr essed t o XYZ Corp. ) ,

348 F. 3d 16, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( "[ T] he at t or ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege

may be wai ved . . . . When otherwi se pr i vi l eged communi cat i ons are

di scl osed t o a t hi r d par t y, t he di scl osur e dest r oys t he

conf i dent i al i t y upon whi ch t he pr i vi l ege i s pr emi sed. " ) . Def endant

di d not cont end t her e was a pr i vi l ege wai ver bef or e t he di st r i ct

cour t , however , meani ng t hi s ar gument i s, i r oni cal l y, wai ved. See

Vzquez- Ri ver a v. Fi guer oa, 759 F. 3d 44, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

We decl i ne t o evade l ogi c and case l aw. J ohnson' s

st at ement s t o her at t or neys wer e not agai nst her cr i mi nal i nt er est

because, when made, t hey were conf i dent i al and pr otected by t he

at t or ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege. Thus, t he di str i ct cour t cor r ect l y

f ound her at t orneys' pr of f ered t est i mony about t hose st at ement s t o

be i nadmi ssi bl e under Rul e 804( b) ( 3) .

B. Rule 807

Anot her except i on t o hear say excl usi on i s t he "Resi dual

Except i on, " by whi ch hear say i s admi ssi bl e i f : " ( 1) t he st at ement

has equi val ent ci r cumst ant i al guar ant ees of t r ust wor t hi ness; ( 2) i t

-23-


24/29

i s of f er ed as evi dence of a mat er i al f act ; ( 3) i t i s mor e pr obat i ve

on t he poi nt f or whi ch i t i s of f er ed t han any ot her evi dence t hat

t he pr oponent can obt ai n t hr ough r easonabl e ef f or t s; and ( 4)

admi t t i ng i t wi l l best ser ve t he pur poses of t hese r ul es and t he

i nt er est s of j ust i ce. " Fed. R. Evi d. 807( a) . I n gener al ,

"Congr ess i nt ended the resi dual hear say except i on t o be used ver y

r ar el y, and onl y i n except i onal ci r cumst ances. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Tr enkl er , 61 F. 3d 45, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( i nter nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

The di st r i ct cour t excl uded t he t est i mony of J ohnson' s

at t or neys under Rul e 807( a) ' s t hi r d el ement . The at t or neys'

t est i mony woul d have been cumul at i ve r ather t han more pr obat i ve,

t he cour t f ound, because i t was dupl i cat i ve of J ohnson' s own

notar i zed st atement s. Awer , 502 F. Supp. 2d at 276.

Def endant agai n r el i es on Mor al es t o ar gue f or admi ssi on.

Ther e, af t er r ul i ng out Rul e 804( b) ( 3) , t he cour t admi t t ed For nes'

st atement s t o at t orney Cohen under Rul e 807, i n part because

Cohen' s t est i mony was "vi t al " t o Mor al es' case. Mor al es, 154 F.

Supp. 2d at 726. I n l i ne wi t h t hi s, Def endant ar gues t he l awyer s'

t est i mony her e was vi t al - - i . e. , mor e pr obat i ve t han J ohnson' s

st at ement s. He gi ves scat t er ed r easons f or thi s pur por t ed

vi t al i t y, whi ch we put i nt o t hr ee br oad cat egor i es: i dent i t y,

cont ext , and dr ama. Fi r st , i dent i t y: Def endant assert s t he

t est i mony i s mor e pr obat i ve because i t comes f r omseasoned l awyer s.

-24-


25/29

Second, cont ext : Def endant cont ends t he at t orneys woul d have

t est i f i ed J ohnson: ( a) spoke conf i dent i al l y, bol st er i ng her

credi bi l i t y; ( b) t ol d t he at t or ney on t he day of her ar r est t he

cocai ne was her s, maki ng i t unl i kel y she concoct ed t he st or y l at er ;

( c) t al ked t o bot h at t or neys out si de Def endant ' s pr esence,

decr easi ng t he possi bi l i t y of coer ci on; ( d) was ver y emot i onal and

di st r essed t hat Def endant was bei ng accused, bol st er i ng her

credi bi l i t y, and ( e) t ol d t hem speci f i cs of how she put t he dr ugs

i n Def endant ' s bag wi t hout hi m knowi ng. Thi r d, dr ama: Def endant

argues t he j ur y woul d have been more persuaded by l i ve t est i mony

t han by "a pi ece of paper . "

Def endant makes a r easonabl e- - al bei t f l awed- - argument . 7

Probl em i s, a r easonabl e ar gument can al so be made t hat a j ur y

woul d f i nd a det ai l ed handwr i t t en conf essi on f ar mor e compel l i ng

t han a l awyer ' s t hi r d- par t y account , no mat t er how much cont ext t he

l awyer can pr ovi de. 8 Li kewi se, a wr i t t en account f r om soon af t er

t he i nci dent r emoves al l need t o r el y on a wi t ness' s memory of

event s l ong past . Because reasonabl e mi nds can di sagree on whether

7 To gi ve j ust one exampl e of a f l aw, Def endant ' s cont ext anddr ama argument s ar e undercut by t he f act t hat J ohnson' s cel l matet est i f i ed i n per son, l abel ed J ohnson "honest , " and det ai l edJ ohnson' s di st r essed emot i onal st at e.

8 The publ i c vi ew of l awyer s, af t er al l , i s ver i f i abl y di smal .See Publ i c Est eem f or Mi l i t ar y St i l l Hi gh, Pew Resear ch Cent er( J ul y 11, 2013) , ht t p: / / www. pewf or um. or g/ 2013/ 07/ 11/publ i c- est eem- f or - mi l i t ar y- st i l l - hi gh/ ( "Among t he 10 occupat i onst he sur vey asked r espondent s t o r at e [ f or cont r i but i on t o soci et y] ,l awyer s ar e at t he bot t om of t he l i st . " ( emphasi s added) ) .

-25-


26/29

t he at t or neys' t est i mony was vi t al , t he di st r i ct cour t ' s posi t i on- -

t hat t he test i mony was not mor e pr obat i ve t han J ohnson' s wr i t t en

st at ement s- - cannot be an abuse of di scr et i on, especi al l y when Rul e

807 i s " t o be used ver y rar el y" and onl y i n "except i onal

ci r cumst ances. " See Uni t ed St ates v. Hughes, 535 F. 3d 880, 88283

( 8t h Ci r . 2008) ( di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n

decl i ni ng t o admi t t est i mony under Rul e 807 i n par t because "t he

excl uded t est i mony was cumul at i ve of Hughes' s own t est i mony") .

IV. Improper Statements

Fi nal l y, Def endant ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by not

decl ar i ng a mi st r i al on t he basi s of t hr ee i mpr oper st at ement s made

at t r i al : ( 1) t he exper t of f i cer ' s use of t he t er m "conf essi on";

( 2) t he same exper t ' s " sl am- dunk" r emark; and ( 3) t he pr osecut or ' s

st at ement t hat dr ug deal er s use f emal e dr i ver s. We consi der de

novo whether t hese st atement s were act ual l y i mpr oper and, i f so,

whether t hey were harmf ul . See Uni t ed St ates v. Manor , 633 F. 3d

11, 16- 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . "But we r evi ew t he j udge' s deci si on

denyi ng [ Def endant ' s] mi st r i al and new- t r i al mot i ons onl y f or

' mani f est abuse of di scret i on. ' " I d. at 17 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Pot t er , 463 F. 3d 9, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) .

Def endant t aci t l y admi t s each al l eged er r or woul d not

i t sel f mer i t a mi st r i al . Rat her , he onl y cont ends t he di st r i ct

cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by not decl ar i ng a mi st r i al based on

t hei r cumul at i ve pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . We cannot agr ee.

-26-


27/29

I n a di f f er ent cont ext , say, wher e a def endant ' s

i ncul pat or y st at ement was ent i r el y excl uded, t he use of t he t er m

"conf essi on" at t r i al coul d be devast at i ng. Her e, however , t wo

of f i cer s t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat Def endant made i ncul pat or y

comment s t o t hemaf t er hi s ar r est . And 18 U. S. C. 3501( e) def i nes

a conf essi on as "any sel f - i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement made or gi ven

or al l y or i n wr i t i ng. " Thus, Def endant arguabl y di d make a

conf essi on, l i ke t he exper t st at ed, as t hat t er m i s def i ned i n

f eder al st at ut es. Mor eover , def ense counsel made cl ear onl y t he

t er m"conf essi on" was obj ect i onabl e, not t he exper t ' s r ef er ence t o

Def endant ' s under l yi ng st at ement s. 9 I n a scenar i o such as t hi s,

"[ t ] he use of t he wor d ' conf essi on' wi t hout mor e . . . si mpl y i s

not ' ser i ous' mi sconduct , i f mi sconduct at al l . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Scot t , 267 F. 3d 729, 742 ( 7t h Ci r . 2001) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Goodl ow, 105 F. 3d 1203, 1207 ( 8t h Ci r . 1997) ( "Whether a st atement

gi ven t o l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s shoul d be r ef er r ed t o as a

conf essi on . . . appear s, at best , t o be a quest i on of semant i cs

and not a pot ent i al gr ound f or mi sconduct . " ) . And t he cour t ' s

pr ompt and accur at e i nst r uct i ons suf f i ce t o assuage any f ai r - t r i al

concer ns. See, e. g. , Scot t , 267 F. 3d at 742.

9 I ndeed, moment s af t er t he "conf essi on" comment , def ensecounsel di d not obj ect when t he exper t t est i f i ed one r eason pol i cedi d not l ook f or f i nger pr i nt s was because of " t he st at ement t hatwas gi ven [ by Def endant ] . " Supp. App' x at 557 ( emphasi s added) .

-27-


28/29

Si mi l ar l y, t he pr osecut or ' s chal l enged comment dur i ng

cl osi ng ar gument was j ust a sl i ght mi sst atement of t he evi dence,

and i t was swi f t l y cor r ect ed by t he cour t . Agai n, t he exper t

t est i f i ed dr ug deal er s of t en avoi d det ect i on by havi ng women i n t he

car , whereas t he pr osecut or st ated t hey of t en have women dr i vi ng

t he car . Thi s was i ncor r ect and i mpr oper , t o be sur e, but i t was

har dl y har mf ul gi ven t hat t he of f i cer ' s or i gi nal st at ement was

appl i cabl e t o t he si t uat i on her e- - J ohnson was i n t he car , af t er

al l - - and t her ef or e pr obabl y j ust as damni ng. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Dancy, 640 F. 3d 455, 463 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "Any er r or i s har ml ess i f

t he gover nment shows i t i s ' hi ghl y pr obabl e that t he er r or di d not

i nf l uence t he ver di ct. ' " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Al so, not hi ng

i ndi cat ed t hi s mi sr epr esent at i on was i nt ent i onal . "Thi s cour t has

consi st ent l y hel d t hat wher e t he pr osecut or uni nt ent i onal l y

mi sst at es t he evi dence dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument , a j ur y i nst r uct i on

or di nar i l y i s suf f i ci ent t o cur e any pot ent i al pr ej udi ce,

par t i cul ar l y wher e, as her e, t he i nst r uct i on was gi ven i mmedi at el y

af t er t he st at ement . " Ol szewski v. Spencer , 466 F. 3d 47, 6061

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Thi s l eaves Def endant ' s cumul at i ve ar gument r est i ng

al most excl usi vel y on t he "sl am- dunk" comment . The di st r i ct cour t

r i ght l y acknowl edged t hi s comment was more pr obl emat i c. As

Def endant poi nt s out , t hi s case was not a "sl am- dunk" gi ven

J ohnson' s cl ai ms of sol e cul pabi l i t y. That sai d, t he cour t

-28-


29/29

i mmedi at el y and repeat edl y admoni shed the j ur y t o di sr egar d thi s

st atement , and we have l ong pr esumed j ur i es obey cur at i ve

i nst r uct i ons. See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 675 F. 3d 48, 63 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) ; Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d at 118485. Def endant has pr ovi ded

us wi t h no case where a mi st r i al was gr ant ed based on a si mi l ar

st at ement by i t sel f or i n conj unct i on wi t h ot her mor e mi nor

i mpr oper st at ement s. Tr i al j udges ar e "best si t uat ed t o make a

bat t l ef i el d assessment of t he i mpact t hat a par t i cul ar pi ece of

i mpr oper i nf ormat i on may have on a j ur y. " Uni t ed St ates v.

Di Sant o, 86 F. 3d 1238, 1248 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o gr ant a mi st r i al because t he

"sl am- dunk" comment was r andomand coul d have hur t t he prosecut i on,

and because pr oper i nst r uct i ons were gi ven. We f i nd no mani f est

abuse of di scret i on i n t hat deci si on.

V. Conclusion

Accordi ngl y, we AFFI RM.

-29-

United States v. Awer, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Awer, 1st Cir. (2014)