U.S v. Orr

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm by felon, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of evidence gathered from his apartment that was done pursuant to search warrant that was based upon information supplied by informant who had participated in controlled purchased of drugs from defendant. Information supplied by informant was extensively corroborated by police, who observed some of controlled drug purchases, and who linked car used by defendant to said controlled purchases. Fact that informant did not describe defendant’s physical features, or quantify drugs found on defendant or in his apartment did not require different result. However, defendant was entitled to new trial, where Dist. Ct. violated Judicial Recusal Statute (28 USC section 455(a)) by making ex parte communications with prosecuting U.S. Attorney’s Office, and where Dist. Ct. had made two close discretionary decisions against defendant at trial regarding admission of evidence of drugs gathered during controlled purchases and during search of defendant’s apartment, as well as allowing prosecutor to ask defendant about his prior drug conviction.  As such, because said discretionary decisions likely played consequential role at defendant’s trial, Dist. Ct.'s violation of recusal statue was not harmless, and new trial was warranted due to risk of unfairness that Dist. Ct.'s personal bias may have influenced outcome of case.