Criminal Law

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drug-dealing paraphernalia found in defendant’s home pursuant to search warrant, where defendant argued that affidavit supporting issuance of search warrant lacked probable cause and contained material falsehoods and omissions. While defendant argued that agent generating affidavit relied on untested information from recently arrest informant, Ct. of Appeals found that affidavit contained probable cause to support search warrant, where: (1) certain facts supplied by informant was corroborated, including address of defendant’s home where informant claimed he had made several drug purchases; and (2) officer generating affidavit was familiar with defendant from prior criminal investigations, including defendant’s prior drug-related conviction. Moreover, informant provided detailed information regarding quantity, type of drugs and pricing for his prior dealings with defendant, and informant’s statements were not subject to immunity and were against his penal interests. Fact that affidavit contained false statements regarding alleged incident where defendant had flushed down drugs in toilet and regarding length of time informant had been dealing with defendant did not require suppression of evidence, where said facts were not necessary to finding of probable cause, and where there was no evidence that officer was attempting to mislead issuing judge.

In prosecution on bank fraud charge stemming from defendant’s submission of false tax returns to obtain loans proceeds and on tax fraud charge stemming from defendant’s request for $5.5 million refund, prosecution did not commit misconduct in having defendant’s accountant testify before grand jury that tax returns submitted to banks were “hypothetical” returns, even though defendant argued that such testimony was coerced, since: (1) accountant did not break law by generating said hypothetical returns to demonstrate different interpretations of Tax Code; and (2) regardless of either accountant’s or defendant’s intent when preparing such returns, jury could conclude that defendant knew that said returns had not been filed, and thus could not support instant loan applications. Also, record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s tax fraud conviction, even though defendant argued that he held honest belief that his submission of return seeking $5.5 million in tax refund was done in good faith, where circumstantial evidence supported jury’s finding that that defendant knew his refund request was fraudulent, based on fact that: (1) instant return, which was self-filed, was wildly different from his legitimately-filed prior tax returns; and (2) defendant was told by IRS prior to filing his return that his theory behind instant refund was frivolous.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in defendant’s home, where defendant alleged that govt. lacked probable cause to support issuance of search warrant. While defendant asserted that affidavit did not contain sufficient information about credibility and reliability of two informants, probable cause existed to support issuance of search warrant, where: (1) one informant provided detailed and first-hand description of his weekly purchases of heroin from defendant; (2) informant purchased heroin from defendant within two days of date of affidavit; and (3) second informant corroborated statements of first informant regarding defendant’s drug dealing activities. Fact that first informant admitted to using drugs on night before statement or was first-time informant did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from denial of his habeas petition that challenged his sentence, where defendant argued that his post-conviction counsel had abandoned him by failing to withdraw from his case on appeal and therefore depriving him of opportunity to file his own memorandum in support of his request for certificate of appealability that had been previously declined by Ct. of Appeals. Any ruling on instant Rule 60(b) motion could not direct Ct. of Appeals to issue certificate of appealability as requested by defendant. Moreover, defendant had previously filed similar motion to recall mandate to reopen his appeal, which had been denied by Ct. of Appeals. Also, defendant’s underlying claim that his trial counsel was ineffective during sentencing hearing by misrepresenting his potential sentence and by failing to present mitigating evidence was without merit.