Criminal Law

On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, Ct. of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction on charge of obstruction of justice stemming from allegation that defendant removed certain corporate records during grand jury investigation. While defendant argued that said conviction could not stand in light of fact that U.S. Supreme Court had vacated his conviction for honest-services fraud that was prosecuted during same trial, Ct. of Appeals found that obstruction of justice conviction could still stand where evidence of defendant’s guilt was compelling and where giving jury erroneous instruction on honest services fraud charge was irrelevant to jury’s resolution of obstruction of justice charge. Ct. similarly found that defendant’s pecuniary fraud charge stemming from receipt of portion of $600,000 payment in exchange for alleged covenant not to compete could still stand based upon defendant’s unbelievable explanation for receipt of said funds. Ct., though, held that another pecuniary fraud conviction concerning payment of $5.5 million as disguised management fee could not stand where jury was given both pecuniary and erroneous honest-services fraud instructions arising out of same incident.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing govt. to play recordings of telephone calls defendant made to third-party while in jail even though jury was able to hear that defendant was incarcerated when making said call. Although telephone conversations described only purchase of car, prosecutor could properly view said calls as relevant evidence of defendant making coded suggestions that third-party intimidate or threaten individual expected to testify against defendant at trial. Moreover, admission of said calls was not overly prejudicial where jury was exposed to only occasional reference to defendant being in jail. Additionally, Dist. Ct. did not commit reversible error in taking notice of defendant’s 2007 conviction for distributing cocaine or in admitting evidence that defendant sold crack cocaine to others at least 15 times.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress cocaine seized without warrant from back seat of car in which defendant was passenger, even though officer had initially stopped vehicle based on alleged seat belt violation, and Dist. Ct. otherwise disbelieved said officer that he conduced search of vehicle after observing small amount of marijuana in vehicle. Record showed that defendant had been subject of recent DEA wiretap and officer surveillance that provided sufficient information to give instant officer probable cause to search instant vehicle under collective knowledge doctrine. Fact that officer testified that he did not rely on information he had previously received from others about ongoing investigation to justify instant search was irrelevant.

Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering arising out of scheme to sell large quantities of marijuana. Instant indictment required proof that defendant intended to promote carrying on of marijuana trafficking through his purchase of money orders that were redeemed by third-party, and record failed to contain any evidence that third-party understood that defendant's purchase and her redemption of money orders were related to marijuana trafficking. Record, though, supported defendant's conviction of drug distribution charge stemming from defendant's receipt of keys to van that had been loaded with 100 kilograms of marijuana, even though defendant argued that he did not actually or constructively possess said marijuana because police had disconnected battery to van prior to tender of keys to defendant.