U.S. v. Pierson

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm, Dist. Ct. did not err in failing to conduct hearing to determine whether defendant had entered into proffer agreement regarding use of statements made during unsuccessful plea negotiations, or by allowing witness to testify about course of police investigation that led to his arrest, where police discovered gun underneath him during struggle. While defendant asserted that he did not knowingly sign Proffer Letter that contained waiver of his rights not to use of said statements, and that evidentiary hearing was required to resolve his claim, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct evidentiary hearing, since defendant provided Dist. Ct. with only conclusory statements that he did not sign Proffer Letter knowingly or voluntarily, and he failed to contend that he was coerced into signing Proffer Letter. Also, any error was harmless, where government had never sought to use at trial inculpatory statements covered by Proffer Letter. With respect to Dist. Ct. allowing government to have witness testify as to reason why police were conducting investigation of defendant at time of his arrest, government was initially precluded from letting jury know that third-party had alerted them to domestic violence incident involving defendant’s threat of use of gun, and that they were attempting to question defendant about said complaint at time of his arrest. However, defendant’s counsel questioned during opening statements police's reasons for stopping defendant and police use of force when arresting defendant, and thus Dist. Ct. could properly allow government to present evidence as to their statement of mind, which included recent knowledge of the domestic violence complaint that involved threat of gun violence, to explain circumstances of his arrest, especially where jury was given appropriate limiting instruction as to jury’s consideration of said testimony.