Criminal Law

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs and money seized from defendant during incident in which defendant had previously fled from police after traffic stop. While defendant argued that said evidence should be suppressed since police used excessive force to apprehend and arrest him, Dist. Ct. could properly deny defendant’s motion under Watson, 558 F3d 702, since any use of excessive force cannot be remedied by suppression of evidence. As such, defendant’s only remedy is civil lawsuit against police. Moreover, defendant failed to establish any causal nexus between any use of force and discovery of drugs where record showed that defendant discarded drugs during chase before police applied any force to defendant. Fact that defendant was briefly under arrest for traffic incident prior to time he had fled police did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 60-month term of incarceration on charge of making false threats to detonate explosive devise stemming from scheme that involved threats to burn Quran, as well as threat to blow up himself and his neighbors at defendant’s home. Dist. Ct. could properly impose enhancement under section 3A1.2 of UGGS since threats involved law enforcement personnel who appeared at his residence. Moreover, instant sentence was not substantively unreasonable, although sentence was three months above applicable guidelines and defendant otherwise suffered from bi-polar mental disorder, where instant departure from guidelines was minor, and where Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant was clearly aware that his actions were criminal in nature, and that he demonstrated control throughout incident. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. had failed to adequately consider his mental condition when imposing instant sentence.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate potential alibi witnesses. Defendant’s alibi was that he was at nightclub at time of shooting, such that trial counsel’s interview of only one potential witness, who supported alibi but had criminal record, without exploring whether others at nightclub could provide credible alibi testimony, was unreasonable. Moreover, counsel’s failure to conduct further investigation was prejudicial where two govt. witnesses, who placed defendant at scene of crime, had inconsistencies in their testimonies. Remand, though, was required for further determination as to extent of trial counsel’s investigation of defendant’s alibi claim.

Ct. of Appeals dismissed defendant’s appeal challenging his below-guidelines, 151-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge based on waiver of appeal contained in plea agreement. While defendant argued that presentence report incorrectly labeled him as career offender, and that trial counsel was ineffective, any challenge to defendant’s guilty plea would be frivolous given defendant’s responses during plea colloquy. Moreover, Ct. deferred any ruling on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, after noting that it should be raised in collateral proceeding.