Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing charge under 18 USC section 1959, alleging that defendant arranged and paid for murder of Mexican citizen that took place in Mexico, after finding that section 1959 did not apply to crimes occurring outside of U.S. Dismissal was improper where instant murder was designed to facilitate operation of criminal enterprise located in U.S.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on charges of conspiracy to intimidate or interfere with third-parties' use of their home on account of their race by burning cross on front lawn of said individuals' home. While defendant argued that evidence failed to establish that he was motivated by bi-racial makeup of occupants of home, record showed that defendant had uttered to others that he had "burned a cross on a nigger's yard." Moreover, jury could properly have viewed burning cross as evidence of racism and as threatening act of intimidation.

Defendant was entitled to new trial on drug conspiracy charge where police officer was allowed to identify defendant's voice on recorded conversation where said identification was based in part on officer's claim that he had overheard conversation between defendant and his counsel prior to court hearing. Admission of officer's testimony precluded defendant's counsel from conveying to jury in any meaningful way fact that defendant had disputed officer's claim that conversation with defendant's counsel had occurred, and officer's other basis for making said identification was limited to brief statements defendant had made in-court. Moreover, Dist. Ct. should have explored conflict of interest arising out of advocate witness rule before denying defendant's motion for mistrial.

In prosecution on drug and firearm offenses, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to search warrant issued by state court judge. While affidavit supporting issuance of warrant contained some factual inaccuracies and stale statements from tipster, Dist. Ct. could properly find that any errors in affidavit were result of negligence, rather than intentional deceit, and that affidavit was still sufficient to support issuance of warrant even if inaccurate statements were removed. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly reject defendant's claim that police violated his 4th Amendment rights by searching his trash can (containing corroborative evidence of drug activity) when it credited police testimony that can had been placed on curb (so as to permit lawful search), as opposed to near defendant's garage.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 140-month term of incarceration on charges of theft of firearms and unlawful possession of firearm where said sentence was based, in part, on four-level enhancement provided in section 2K2.1(b)(6) of USSG. Said enhancement was proper under Application Note 14(b) where, as here, defendant's theft of firearms occurred during course of burglary.