2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-17-2007 

# U SA v . S purell P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5444

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S pur e ll " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 576. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/576NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 05- 5444

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HA RO LD SPURELL a / k / a J AM AI NE J OHNS ON H a ro ld S p u re ll, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00491) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck

_________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 15, 2007 B E F O R E : M cK E E , S T A P L E T O N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2007)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________2

N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. H ar ol d Spur el l a/k/ a J amai ne J ohns on w as appr ehende d byPhi l adel phi a pol i ce o f f ice rs a f ter lea d in g th e m o n a h ig h -sp e e d c a r c h a se . A ttem p tin g to e lu d e a rre st, S p u re ll eventual l ys t opped hi s carand fl ed on foot . A s he r an fr om hi s car , Phi l adel phi a pol i ce offi cer s not ed a “ s hi nyobj ect ” fa l l fr om Spur el l ’ s w ai s tband. O ffi cer s found the obj ect

— a . 38 cal i berr evol verl oaded w i t h l i ve amm uni t i on. Spur el l w as appr ehende d s ever al bl ocks aw ayand w as arr es t ed. Spur el l had s erved more than a y eari n pr i s on on a fe l ony char ge i n M ont gom eryC ount y , Penns y l vani a. H e w as on par ol e fr om thatconvi ct i on and s ent ence w hen arr es t ed. Spur el l w as char ged w i t h and found gui l t yof bei ng a convi ct ed f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm , a v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). W hi l e hi s char ges w er e pendi ng, Spur el l m ade r eques t s of the courtand the governm entt o di s cl os e gr and j ur yt es t i m onyof Speci al A gentU vena of the B ur eau of A lco h o l, T o b a c c o a n d F ire a rm s. T h e G o v e rn m e n t re f u se d th e re q u e st. A fter h is co n v ict ion , b u t bef o re se n tenc ing , S p u rell ag ain re q u ested g ran d jury t es t i m ony , t hi s t i m e ar gui ng t hathe nee ded the t es t i m onyt o chal l enge hi s s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctJ udge conduc t ed an i n camer a r evi ew and deni ed Spur el l ’ s r eques t . Spur el l w as s ent ence d t o s i xt ym ont hs i ncar cer at i on and t i m el yappea l ed. S p u re ll r a is e s tw o p ri n c ip a l is s u e s o n a p p e a l, b o th o f w h ic h w e f

in d m e ri tle s s . Fi r s t , Spur el l ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o di s cl os e gr and j ur yt es t i m ony . A ddi t i onal l y , Spur el l ar gues thathe had a r i ghtt o confr ontgovernm ent3

t r i a l wi t n e s s e s — t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s — wi t h a n ys t a t e me n t s th e yma d e t o th e ATF a g e n t. Spur el l ’ s conce s s i on t hatt he G overnm ent“thr oughoutthi s pr os ecut i on has been compl et el yfor t hr i ghtand compl i ed w i t h al l the r equi r ement s thrus tupon [i t ] ” l eave s us l es s t han cl earas t o w hathe i s chal l engi ng on appea l . H e does notdi r ect l ycl ai m a B r ady e r r o rr e s u l t i n g f

r o m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s i n c a me r a r e v i e w o f th e g r a n d j u r yt e s t i mo n y . As he ar gues i n hi s br i ef: W h en the D istri ct C o u rtrev iew ed the g ran d jurytest im o n yb ef o re s ent enci ng of the A ppel l ant , i tw oul d have be en eva l uat i ng i tonl yforB r ady m at er i al as t hatw as t he bas i s of A ppel l ant ’ s then s ubm i s s i on forthe author i zat i on of the r el eas e of the gr and j uryt es t i m onyi t s el f. A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef a t13. Spur el l ’ s cl ai m s m os tr es embl e an a l l eged J encks A ctvi ol at i on. T he J encks A ct r equi r es a court , upon m ot i on of the def endantand af

t erdi r ectexami nat i on of a governm entw i t nes s , t o or dert he U ni t ed St at es t o pr oduce t o t he def ens e “a nys t at ement

. . . of the w i t nes s i n [i t s ] pos s es s i on . . . w hi ch r el at es t o t he s ubj ectm att eras t o w hi ch the w i t nes s has t es t i fi ed. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3500( b) . T he keyt o t he appl i cat i on of the J encks A ct i s t hatt he w i t nes s i n ques t i on m us thave t es t i fi ed atthe tr i al . Putanotherw ay , ther e i s no o b l i g a t i o n u n d e rt h e J e n c k s A c tf o rt h e G o v e r n m e n tt o p r o v i d e s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y a w i t nes s w ho does nott es t i fyatt r i al . H er e, the A T F agentdi d nott es t i fyattr i al . I ndeed, none of the w i t nes s es w ho t es t i fi ed attr i al t es t i fi ed t o t he gr and j ury . T her e w as no err orT he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ext ens i ve i ns t ruct i ons on t hi s s ubj ecti ncl uded, for 1 exampl e, t he fol l ow i ng:

“ B u t in m a k in g y o u r a ss e ss m e n t, y o u sh o u ld c a re f u lly s crut i ni ze a l l of the t es t i m onygi ven bythe w i t nes s . Y ou shou l d co nsi der the cir cum st ances u nd er w hich the w i t ness h a s te stif ied , an d a ll o f

th e o th e r e v id e n c e w h ich ten d s to s how w hethert he w i t nes s , i n y ouropi ni on, i s w or t hyof bel i ef. Y ou s houl d cons i dereac h w i t nes s ’ s i nt el l i gence , eac h w i t nes s ’ s m ot i ve t o fal s i fy , the s t at e of mi nd, appea r ance , and d e m e a n o r o f

th e w itn e s s o n th e w itn e s s s ta n d .” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 6 -1 7 . 4 in th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f

a ilu re to p ro v id e th e A T F a g e n t’s g ra n d ju rytes tim o n yto S p u re ll p o s t- tr ia l. Second, Spur el l chal l enges t he i ns t ruct i ons the D i s t r i ctJ udge gave t o t he j uryon th e is s u e o f

w itn e s s c re d ib ility. S p u re ll d id n o t o b je c t to th e in s tru c tio n s a t tr ia l. C o n seq u en tl y , o u r rev iew is l im it ed to p lai n erro r — s ee J ones v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 52 7 U. S. 3 7 3 , 3 8 9 (1 9 9 9 ) — a n d w e f in d n o n e . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s c h a rg e o n w itn e ss c re d ib ili ty w a s le n g th y , d e taile d a n d th o ro u g h . It i s u n d isp u ted th a t th e c h a llen g e d ju ryin stru c tio n in i t s ent i r etyw as a corr ects t at ementof the l aw . Spur el l cl ai m s i ns t ead thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed w hen i tfai l ed t o i ns t ructthe j urythati ts houl d cons i derthe r el at i ons hi ps “w i t nes s es m ayhave t o eac h s i de of the ca s e and how the w i t nes s es m aybe af fec t ed by t he out come of t he ca s e. ” The r ecor d convi nces us thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on s uffi ci ent l yaddr es s how j ur or s ar e t o eval uat e a w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m ony . W e fi nd no 1 rev ersible e rror.W e gave Spur el l perm i s s i on t o fi l e a s uppl ement al br i ef i n w hi ch he 2 in stru c ted h is c o u n se l to ra ise a d d iti o n a l issu e s. S p e c if ica lly , S p u re ll arg u e s th a t h is r i ght s undert he SpeedyT r i al A ctand B r ady v. Mar yland w er e vi ol at ed. T he governm ent w as al s o gi ven an opportuni t yt o r es pond. W e have r evi ew ed the ar gum ent s r ai s ed i n t he s uppl ement al br i ef a s w el l as t he ent i r e r ecor d and fi nd thes e i s s ues t o be fr i vol ous as w e ll. F in a lly , S p u re ll’s b rie f c o n tain s s e v e ra l ad d iti o n a l issu e s h e b e liev e s e n tit le h im to a new t r i al . H i s cour t - appoi nt ed couns el s t at es i n Spur el l ’ s br i ef thathe has r evi ew ed th e se iss u e s a n d th a t h e in f o rm e d S p u re ll th a t th e ya re e ith e r m e ritles s o r c a n n o t p ro p e rly be cons i der ed att hi s s t age i n t he l i t i gat i on. C ouns el i dent i fi ed the fol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) O ffi cerL or enzo pr ovi ded t es t i m onythatw as i ncons i s t entw i t h t es t i m onyi n M uni ci pal C our ti nvol vi ng t he arr es tof Spur el l pr i ort o t he adopt i on of the ca s e forfede r al pr os ecut i on; ( 2) t he G overnm entfai l ed t o pr es enta fi ngerpr i ntexpert ; ( 3) the G overnm entdi d notpr ovi de Spur el l a copyof the pur s ui tm emo pre par ed byO ffi cer L or enzo pr i ort o t r i al ; ( 4) t her e w as confl i ct i ng t es t i m onybetw een of fi cerL or enzo a nd L i eut enantG i nal di aboutw her e Lore nzo r ecove r ed the gun; ( 5) the G overnm entdi d not intr o d u ce into e v iden ce cloth ing all eg ed lyrec o v ere d d u ri n g S p u rell ’s arrest; an d , (6) the re w er e no fi ngerpr i nt s found on the gun r ecove r ed byL or enzo. W e a g ree w ith S p rue ll ’s co u n sel an d the G o v ern m en t th at th ese issue s are frivo lou s. S p u rell ’s co u n sel h as f u lfi ll ed h is r esp o n sibil it ies u n d er A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). 2