Criminal Law

In prosecution on conspiracy to commit murder charge, Dist. Ct. did not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify against himself, even though Dist. Ct. found that defendant could not call his former attorney to testify as to defendant’s reaction to text message that individual, whom defendant had allegedly recruited to kill Assistant U.S. Attorney, had sent to defendant without defendant taking witness stand. While Dist. Ct. erred in requiring defendant to take witness stand as condition for admission of former attorney’s testimony, since such testimony was admissible without defendant’s testimony under state-of-mind exception to hearsay rule, fact that defendant eventually testified did not constitute Fifth Amendment violation, where defendant could have stood on his right not to testify and sought appellate correction of said evidentiary ruling. Moreover, defendant’s testimony was otherwise voluntary since defendant only briefly mentioned his conversation with his former attorney and used opportunity to bolster his version of other facts in case.

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding out-of-court statement by passenger in defendant’s vehicle, who claimed that gun in defendant’s vehicle was actually passenger’s gun. While passenger’s statement was potentially against his penal interest, statement was not admissible as exception to hearsay rule under Rule 804(b)(3), since: (1) Dist. Ct. could properly find that passenger’s claim, that he found instant fully-loaded gun from somewhere and wedged it into driver’s seat where defendant was located, was incredible; and (2) defendant failed to provide any corroborating evidence to suggest that passenger’s statement was trustworthy.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his conviction under Hobbs Act for using extortion measures to injure third-party’s business, even though defendant argued that co-counsel’s theft of defendant’s money three weeks after defendant’s conviction demonstrated that co-counsel labored under conflict of interest that required new trial without need to show prejudice. Post-trial crime by defendant’s co-counsel did not spoil defendant’s trial as matter of law without showing of prejudice, and record showed lack of prejudice where: (1) co-counsel, whose work at trial was supervised by another co-counsel, played only minor role in defendant’s trial; (2) other co-counsel did majority of work at defendant’s trial; and (3) defendant never alleged that other co-counsel labored under conflict of interest.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 135-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge, even though defendant argued that he was entitled to minor role sentence reduction based on fact that defendant served as drug/money courier in conspiracy. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s role in conspiracy was not substantially less culpable than “average member” of conspiracy given large volume of drugs and money that defendant handled on behalf of conspiracy for over one year. Fact that defendant took directions from others in conspiracy did not require different result.