U.S. v. Thomas

In prosecution on charge of armed bank robbery and use of firearm by brandishing firearm during crime of violence, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain err in admitting testimony of defendant’s probation officer, who confirmed that he used particular phone number to reach defendant. While Rules of Evidence restrict admission of evidence of defendant’s prior convictions, defendant disputed whether phone number belonged to him, and thus govt. was entitled to offer evidence tying defendant to said phone number. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly admit evidence that defendant made telephone call while in pretrial detention indicating that he had purchased $30,000 Mercedes Benz shortly after robbery, since defendant did not stipulate to value of car, and evidence of phone call was relevant because value of car roughly matched amount of proceeds defendant had received from bank robbery. Also, Dist. Ct. did not violate defendant’s right under Speedy Trial Clause of 6^th Amendment, even though defendant experienced 242-day delay due to existence of conflict of interest that arose when govt. attempted to contact witness who was also represented by co-defendant’s counsel. Instant conflict of interest required continuance to allow co-defendant to obtain new counsel, and defendant failed to demonstrate any significant impairment to his defense arising out of delay.