Criminal Law

Instant prosecution and conviction on charge that defendant conspired to possess and distribute “khat,” which contains two controlled substances (cathinone and cathine), did not violate defendant’s due process rights even though defendant alleged that Controlled Substance Act (CSA) and its regulations did not provide fair warning that possession of khat might be illegal. CSA specifically provided that cathinone and cathine are controlled substances, and instant charge required proof that defendant had actual knowledge that khat contained controlled substance. Moreover, record contained sufficient evidence to establish such knowledge where defendant’s statements to police, in which he denied ownership of khat, constituted strong circumstantial evidence that defendant knew that khat contained some sort of illegal substance. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that opinion by govt. expert regarding presence of cathinone and cathine in seized drug was based on unreliable testing procedures and methods in violation of Daubert.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective on ground that he was laboring under conflict of interest where, at same time of his representation of defendant, counsel was undergoing investigation from same prosecutor’s office regarding counsel’s own alleged criminal conduct. Defendant failed to present evidence of either actual or potential conflict of interest where prosecutor’s office screened off defendant’s prosecutors from investigation into counsel’s conduct, and where there was no evidence that counsel was attempting to curry favor with govt. in his representation of defendant in effort to advance his own self-interest. Fact that eventual disclosure of counsel’s potential conflict of interest caused delay in defendant’s trial did not constitute evidence of prejudice, where defendant’s rights under Speedy Trial Act were not violated.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise state law issue regarding statutory limitation on state’s ability to amend instant information from original charge of aggravated battery to murder. Record showed that appellate counsel raised reasonable doubt issue that had virtually no chance for success while failing to raise statutory amendment issue that seemed to preclude govt. from amending information because govt.’s motion to amend was filed after statutory deadline. Fact that trial court gave defendant’s trial counsel two months to prepare for murder charge did not preclude defendant from establishing prejudice arising out of appellate counsel’s failure to raise amendment issue since instant continuance was not suitable remedy where, under Indiana Supreme Court precedent, defendant was likely entitled to dismissal of charge.

In prosecution on charge that defendant submitted false statements regarding amount of wages defendant was paying his employees on federally-funded projects, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment due to lack of proper venue. While defendant submitted false payroll records to contractor located in Eastern District of Missouri, venue was also proper in Southern District of Illinois, where said payroll records were generated. Fact that instant charge required proof that false documents were actually tendered to federal authorities did not require different result since: (1) under 18 USC section 3237(a) any offense that was begun in one district and completed in another district can be prosecuted in either district; (2) making of false document can constitute beginning of instant charged offense; and (3) Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that venue can exist in one and only one place.