1

0 8
- 0 8 6 5
- c r ( L) U n i t ed S t ates v. S h y n e (A l ex an d er)



### UN I TED STATES CO UR T O F APP EALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT

_____________________ A ugust Ter m , 2008 ( A r gued: A pr i l 21, 2009 D eci ded: A ugust 5, 2010) D o c k e t No. 0 8
- 0 8 6 5
- c r ( L)

_____________________ UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, Ap pe lle e , v. No.[s]: 08-0865-cr(L), 08-1359- cr(CON), 08-1650-cr( CON) DOUGL AS SHYN E, NAHA R SINGH, N ATASHASINGH, CH RISTINE RICHA RDSON , NATHA NIEL SHYN E, TOYBE BENNET T, EPHRA IM RICHARDSO N, JASON W ATLER, TIMOTHY MONT GOMERY, A NTHON Y PRINCE, MA RION JONES AND NA RESH PITAMBAR, De fen da nts , NATHA NIEL ALEXA

NDER, ST EVEN RIDD ICK AND R OBERTO MONTGOMER Y, De fen da nts -A

pp ellan ts .

_______________________ BEFORE : KEARSE , SACK, and HA LL, Ci rcu it J ud ges .

______________________ Appeals from judgm ents of convicti on entered i n the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Southern Distr ict of New York (Karas, J .). De fe nd an ts- ap pe llants co nte nd that th e d ist

ric t co urt erred by denyi ng defendants’ appli cation to r equire gover nment production of all writt en or rec ord ed statem en ts, inc lud ing co m pre he ns ive no tes fr om

pro ff er s ess ion s, of

co co ns pir ato rs wh o w ou ld n ot b e te sti fy ing at tria l but w ho se s tat em en ts the go ve rnm en t inten de d to int rod uc e at t ria l as statem en ts m ad e in fu rth eranc e o f a

co ns pir acy . T he dis tri ct c ourt’ s ru lin g w as p rop er be cau se t he dis clo sure r eq

uir em en ts o f t

he Jen ck s A ct, 18 U. S. C. § 3 50 0, do no t ap ply to non-testi fying declarant s. In a separ ate summ ary order fil ed along with thi s opinion, we resol ve2

the remaining issues on appeal. For the reasons st ated herei n and in that s umm ary order, t he judgments of conviction are affirmed.

______________________ Fo r D ef en dant- Ap pe llant A lex an de r: Ri ch ard D. W ill statte r, G ree n & W ill statte r, White Plai ns, NY. For Defendant-AppellantRiddick: Marjori e M. Smith, Piermont, NY
. For Defendant-AppellantMontgomery: Thom as H. Nooter, Freeman Nooter & Ginsberg, New York, NY. Fo r App ell ee: Danie l W . L ev y (E . D anya Pe rry , K ath eri ne Po lk Failla, on thebr ief

), A ssi stant Unit ed

St ate s Attor ne ys fo r L evL. Da ssi n, Ac tin g U nit ed St ate s Attorney for the Southe rn Distri ct of New York, New York, NY. PE R C URIA M: Appeals from judgm ents of convicti on entered i n the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Southern Distr ict of New York (Karas, J .). De fe nd an ts- ap pe llants co nte nd that th e d ist

ric t co urt erred by denyi ng defendants’ appli cation to r equire gover nment production of all writt en or
rec ord ed statem en ts, inc lud ing co m pre he ns ive no tes fr om

pro ff er s ess ion s, of

co co ns pir ato rs wh o w ou ld n ot b e te sti fy ing at tria l but w ho se s tat em en ts the go ve rnm en t inten de d to int rod uc e at t ria l as statem en ts m ad e in fu rth eranc e o f t

he co ns pir acy . T he dis tri ct c ourt’ s ru lin g w as pro pe r be cau se t

he dis clo sure r eq

uir em en ts o f t

he Jen ck s A ct, 18 U. S. C. § 3 50 0, do no t ap ply to non-testi fying declarant s. In a separ ate summ ary order fil ed simultaneously with t his opinion,
we res olv e th e re m ain ing iss ue s o n a pp eal . F or t

he rea so ns stated

he rei n and

in t hat summ ary order, the j udgments of conviction are affirmed.Fe de ral Ru le o f E vid en ce 8 01 (d) (2) (E ) pr ov ide s th at “ [a ] s tat em en t is no t he ars ayif 1 -- The stat ement is offered against a part y and is . . . a sta tement by a coconspirat or of a party duri ng the course a nd in furtherance of the conspiracy.” 3 BACKGROUND De fe nd an ts- ap pe llants Nathanie l A lex an de r, S tev enRi dd ick an d R ob ert o M on tgo m ery were indict ed for their par ticipat ion in broad cr iminal conspiraci es to comm it bank fraud and launder money by stealing, a lteri ng or counterfeit ing checks and depos iting the checks into ba nk accounts. Mont gomery was also charged with conspi racy to tr ansport st olen goods resul ting fr om his inv olv em en t in

a sc he m e to purch ase luxury autom ob ile s w ithbo gu s ch eck s. Pr ior to trial , the government disclose d to defense counsel t hat it pl anned to offer statements made by coconspirat ors Anthony Price, Dougla s Shyne, Timothy Montgom ery, Toybe Bennett, and Chris tin e R ich ard so n in

fu rth eranc e o f t

he co ns pir aci es c harge d in the ind ictm en t, p urs uant t o Fe de ral Ru le o f E vid en ce 8 01 (d) (2) (E ). In a cco rdanc e w ithits ob lig ati on s und er Gi gli o v . 1 Un ite d S tates , 4 05 U. S. 15 0 (1 97 2), the go ve rnm en t pr ov ide d d ef en se c ouns el a

thr ee p ag e le tte r that deta iled what the distri ct court c haracter ize d as impeachm ent material for those five coconspirat ors. The government did not, however, t urn over to defense c ounsel a comprehensive set of no tes fr om

its pro ff er s ess ion s w iththe no n-t est if yin g c oc on sp irator s. De fe nd an ts m ad e an

ora l ap pli cat ion

to t he dis tri ct c ourt, su

pp lem en ted

byletter , requesti ng that the gove rnment produce all writ ten or rec orded stat ements, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (“the Jencks Act”) , for the coconspir ators who would not be t estifying at t rial but wh os e st ate m en ts i n f

urt he ran ce o f t

he co ns pir aci es t

he go ve rnm en t inten de d to int rod uc e at tri al. In a wr itt enord er, the dis tri ct c ourt d en ied de fe nd an ts’ req

ue st:The order conta ins a typographical er ror in tha t it re fers to Fed. R. Evid. 2 801(d)(2)( f), which does not exist , rather t han Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)( E). 4 Th e G ov ernm en t is no t re qu ire d to pro du ce p rio r w ritten or r eco rde d s tat em en ts pursu an t to 18 U. S. C. § 3 50 0 in co nn ect ion

wi th c o-c on sp irator

statem en ts und er Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)[(E)]. However, as the Court st ated on the r ecord, the 2 Government is required, pur suant to it s obligati ons under Fed. R. Evid. 806, Gi gli o , and Brady , to provide i mpeachm ent material for the pe rsons who made the purport ed statements in further ance of the conspir acy. Fo llo wi ng a se ve nte en -day tr ial , A lex an de r an d R idd ick we re c onvic ted

of co ns pir acy

to
comm it bank fraud, in vi olation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, bank fraud, in violat ion of 18 U.S.C. § 13 44 , and co ns pir acy

to c om m it m on eylaund eri ng , in vio lat ion of 18 U. S. C. § 1 95 6(h ). Mo ntg om ery

wa s f ound no t gu ilty o n th e su

bs tantiv e co un t of

bank fr au d, co ns pir acy

to c om m it bank fr au d and

co ns pir acy

to c om m it m on eylaund eri ng . H e w as c onvic ted of co ns pir acy

to transport stolen goods, i n violati on of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Before the distr ict court , Alexander argue d that itwas the discl osure obliga tions of the Jen ck s A ct, tog eth er w iththe Fi ft h and Si xth Am en dm en ts, that re qu ire d p rod uc tio n o f a ll proffer notes made by the non-testi fying coconspirat ors whose stat ements in furtherance of a
co ns pir acy

the go ve rnm en t inten de d to int rod uc e into e vid en ce at tr ial . O n a pp eal , A lex an de r, joi ne d b y R idd ick

an d M on tgo m ery , argu es t hat th e d ist

ric t co urt ’s d eci sio n to de nythe ir r eq ue st for the proffer notes, or summaries of proffer statements, m ade by the non-t estifying coconspirat ors, deprive d them of due process and violated t he confrontation c lause and
co m pu lso ry p roc ess cla

us e o f t he Si xth Am en dm en t. DISCUSSION In t his ap pe al w e co ns ide r w he the r th e d isc los ure ob lig ati on s o f t he Jen ck s A ct e xte nd

to req uir e p rod uc tio n o f a ll p rof

fe r no tes fo r no n-t est if

yin g d ecl arants wh os e st ate m en ts i n5

fu rth eranc e o f a

co ns pir acy

the go ve rnm en t inten ds to i ntr od uc e into e vid en ce at tr ial pursu an t to Federal Rule of Evidence 801( d)(2)(E) . “We review issues of statutor y construct ion de no vo , an d th e lang ua ge of

a st atute i s o ur s tar

tin g p oint in

su chinq uir ies .” United States v. Figueroa , 165 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (i nternal c itati on omitted). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedur e 16(a)(2) , “the discove ry or inspec tion of statements made by prospective gover nment witnesses” is prohi bited, “exce pt as provide d in 18 U. S. C. § 3 50 0 [ (‘T he Jen ck s A ct’ )] .” Th e Je nc ks Ac t pe rm its dis clo sure o f w itn ess statem en ts and reports in a criminal case
. Se e 18 U. S. C. § 3 50 0. “A ft er a wi tne ss c all ed

bythe Un ite d States has t estified on dir ect examination, the c ourt shall , on motion of the defendant, order the Un ite d S tat es t o p rod

uc e any s tat em en t . . . o f t he wi tne ss i n th e p os ses sio n o f t he Un ite d S tat es wh ich rel ate s to the su

bje ct m att er a s to wh ich

the wi tne ss h as t est if

ied .” Id. at § 3500(b). By its own te rm s th e Je nc ks Ac t ap pli es t o a “w itn ess ” w ho “h as t est if ied on dir ect
ex am inatio n. ” Id. at § 35 00 (a) (“n o s tat em en t or rep ort in t he po sse ssi on

of the Un ite d S tat es which was made by a Governm ent witness . . . shall be t he subject of subpena, di scovery, or ins pe cti on

un til sai d w itn ess ha s te sti fi ed on dir ect ex am inatio n in

the tri al o f t

he cas e. ”); see als o United States v. Jackson , 3 45 F. 3d 59 , 7 6 (2 d C ir. 20 03 ) (n oti ng that th e Je nc ks Ac t “d oe s not normally mandate disclosure of sta tements m ade by a person who does nottestify.”). Al ex an de r’s co un sel co nc ed ed as m uc h whe n h e w rot e in

anAp ril 12 , 2 00 7 le tte r to the dis tri ct court that the discl osure requi rements of the Jencks Act are “ somewhat lim ited to per sons act ua llytes tif

yin g. ” (p are nth ese s o m itt ed ). A cco rdi ng to d ef en se c ouns el, ho we ve r, t

his limitation is “ trump[ed] ” by Federal Rule of Evidence 806, which provides t hat when a stat ement has been admitted into e vidence pursua nt to Rule 801(d) (2)(E), “t he credibi lity of the decl arantW e note thatin his repl y brief, Alexander st ates that “[w]e did not argue . . . that t he 3 Jen ck s A ct . . . req

uir es t he dis clo sure o f 8 06 m ate ria l.” Th is c on tentio n, ho we ve r, i s contrary bot h to Alexander’ s recit ation of facts in his principal brief on appeal and t o the rec ord . In

his pri nc ipa l br ief

Al ex an de r st ate s: By letter, a nd in oral ar gument (in which Alexander would joi n), counsel for co-defendant Roberto M ontgomery argued that the government should be required t o disclose pr ior stat ements of the witnesses as encompassed by 18 U. S. C. 35 00
. . . . [C ]o un sel arg ue d th at d isc los ure wa s re qu ire d in ord er t o m ak e ef fe cti ve us e o f t

he im pe achm en t to ol f

or n on -te sti fy ing de clarants found in F.R.E. 806. An d p rio r to the tri al, de fe ns e co un sel fo r R ob ert o M on tgo m ery wr ote a le tte r to the dis tri ct co urt jud ge : Yo ur H on or: I am writing in support of the or al applic ation made for the 3500 “prior statements” of co-conspir ators whose decl arations are being offered by the go ve rnm en t ev entho ug h th e d ecl arants the m sel ve s ar e n ot t est if yin g. Si nc e the co-conspi rator dec larants are, pursuant to Rule 806 of the Federal Rules of Ev ide nc e, su

bje ct t o im

pe achm en t . . . w e co nte nd that f air ne ss d ict ate s th at the 35 00 m ate ria l in

the go ve rnm en t’s po sse ssi on . . . s ho uld

be tur ne d o ve r to the defense. [Because Rule 806 was passe d subsequent to t he Jencks Act,] we arg ue that th e n ew er R

ule 80 6 tr um ps (am en ds ) th e Je nc ks Ac t in so far as the re is an inconsi stency. 6 may be attacked . . . by any evidence which would be admissible for those pur poses if declar ant had testi fied as a witness.” Appellants ar gue, in essence , that becaus e Rule 806 treat s a declar ant as i f h e is a te sti fy ing wi tne ss f or t he purpo ses of

att ack ing his cre dib ili ty, the de clarant m us t al so be considere d a witness underthe Jencks Act. Ale xander argued t o the distr ict court that, “the rig ht t o im

pe ach the de clarant sh ou ld b e co ter m ino us wi th t

he rig ht t o o bta in t

he inf orm ati on in the possessi on of the government which will allow the defendant to impeach a witness.” 3 Our C irc uit

ha s n ot, un til no w, de fi nit ive ly a dd res sed wh eth er the ap pli cat ion

of Fe de ral Rule of Evidence 806 extends t he Jencks Act to r equire dis closure of stat ements m ade by non-testi fying declarant s. See United Stat es v. Jackson , 345 F.3d 59, 76-78 (2d Cir. 2003)7

(no tin g th at the iss ue did

no t ne ed to b e d eci de d b eca

us e if the re w as a

Jen ck s A ct e rro r, i t w as harmless). In addres sing this i ssue we are ai ded by our sist er circ uit’s ana lysis in Un ite d S tates
v. Wil lia ms -D av is , 9 0 F .3 d 4 90 (D .C . C ir. 19 96 ). T he re, a d ef en dant and

he r bo yf rie nd we re pro sec ute d f

or, inter a lia , their par ticipat ion in a cocai ne distri bution conspir acy. The boyfriend ini tia llyag ree d to co op erate w iththe go ve rnm en t but th ensk ipp ed bo nd an d f led to a co un try with no extradi tion tre aty with the Unit ed States. Id. at 5 12 . T he bo yf rie nd wa s n ot c all ed

as a witness at t rial, buta number of recorded phone calls i nvolving the boyfrie nd and the defendant were introduc ed at tri al as sta tements m ade in furthera nce of the conspira cy. Id. The defendant arg ue d th at a dm iss ion

of the bo yf rie nd ’s s tat em en ts i n f

urt he ran ce o f t

he co ns pir acy

tri gg ere d the government’s duty underthe Jencks Act t o produce any sta tements that the boyfrie nd made to the government following his ar rest. Id. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Ci rc ui t w as no t p er su ad ed : “ mer el y b ec au se on e s etof rul es . . . mak es tw o d is ti nc t i te ms eq uiv ale nt f or s om e sp eci fi c p urp os e, it d oe s n ot f oll owthat th eyare eq

uiv ale nt f or a ll r elated purpo ses .” Id. at 5 13 . W e ag ree . Th e d ef en dants ’ ar gum en t th at b eca us e a n on -te sti fy ing de clarant’s statem en t co m es i nto
ev ide nc e ag ain st the m

so m eh owco nv ert s th at d ecl arant i nto the eq uiv ale nt o f a

wi tne ss who ha s appeared and t estified underoath is the proverbial comparison of apples to oranges. The production of materials i n possession of the Government that a defendant may use to take advanta ge of

the op po rtunit

y to im pe ach a d ecl arant u

nd er R ule 80 6 and

the Go ve rnm en t’s ob lig ati on

to p rod uc e su chm ate ria ls o f whic h it s ag en ts h av e k no wl ed ge do no t have the ir r oo ts in the Jencks Act. Rather they a rise underdue process obl igations a rticul ated in Bradyand Gi gli o , obligati ons with which the Government c omplied by issuing its l etter de scribing t he8

de clarants’ vario us fo ibl es i nc lud ing the fa ct that on e o f t he de clarants l ied

durin g h is p rof

fe r
ses sio n. Al tho ug h, fo r im pe achm en t pu

rpo ses , R ule 80 6 tr eat s a d ecl arant s pe ak ing in fu rth eranc e o f t

he co ns pir acy

as i f h e w ere a w itn ess , w e d o n ot b eli ev e th at a lso m ean s th at a de clarant w ho se s tat em en t is be ing rep eat ed an d a wi tne ss who giv es l ive tes tim ony are e qu al under the Jenc ks Act. To hold otherwis e would be contrar y to the expre ss language of the Jen ck s A ct whic h s tat es t hat no dis clo sure i s w arr an ted un til “sa id w itn ess ha s te sti fi ed on dir ect examination in the tr ial of the case .” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a). Appellants a re unable t o point to any cases to t he contrar y. Appellants’ constitut ional argument similarly fail s. As an initi al matter, appell ants do not dir ect us to anycas es whic h s up po rt the ir c on tentio n th at the go ve rnm en t’s fa ilure t o p rod uc e statem en ts m ad e b y th e n on -te sti fy ing de clarants r esu lte d in vio lat ion s o f t

he de fe nd an ts’ Si xth Am en dm en t ri gh ts. Ap pe llants ’ C on fr on tat ion Cl au se and

Du e P roc ess Cl au se argum en ts are unavailing be cause those c lauses do not obl igate the government to disclose § 3500 materia l for its tes tifying witnesse s—the government’s disc losure obli gations ar e compelled by the Jencks Act, not the Consti tution. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Au

ge nb lic k , 393 U.S. 348, 356 (1969) (“[O]ur Jen cks [ v. Un ite d S

tates , 3 53 U. S. 65 7 (1 95 7)] de cis ion an d th e Je nc ks Ac t w ere no t ca st i n
co ns tit uti on al t erm s. ”); Sp erl ing v. Un ite d S

tates , 692 F.2d 223, 227 (2d Cir. 1982), su pe rse de d by statute on other grounds , Antiterr orism and Eff ective Deat h Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, as rec og niz ed in T riestm an v. Un ite d S

tates , 124 F.3d 361, 368-69 (2d Ci r. 1 99 7) ( “[ T] he Jen ck s A ct i s a sta tutor yreq uir em en t, n ot a

co ns tit uti on al o ne ” (e m

ph asi s in original )). Thus the ana logy that Appell ants would have us dr aw between non-test ifyingCrawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is not to t he contrar y. In Craw for d , 4 the Su pre m e C ourt h eld

that th e C on fr on tat ion

Cl au se b ars adm iss ion

of out-o f- co urt statem en ts a ga ins t a d ef

en dant t hat ar e “t est im on ial ” in

natur e unle ss t

he de clarants are unable to te stify and the defendant ha d a prior oppor tunity to c ross-examine them. Id. at 59. Craw for d , th ere fo re, do es n ot s pe ak to t he iss ue of

wh enthe go ve rnm en t m

us t di scl os e testimony to the defendant. Rathe r, it merely sets forth the appli cable rul e for admitting out of co urt statem en ts i nto ev ide nc e ag ain st a de fe nd an t. 9 de clarants and

tes tif yin g w itn ess es d oe s n ot w ork
. Ind eed , th e S up rem e C ourt h as i nd icated that 4 statements in further ance of a conspirac y are non-te stimonial for purposes of the Confrontati on Clause, and are t herefore not cover ed by its prot ections. Craw for d , 5 41 U. S. at 5 6 (n oti ng that most hearsay exceptions “covered st atements that by thei r nature wer e not test imonial—for
ex am ple , b us ine ss r eco rds or s tat em en ts i n f urt he ran ce o f a

co ns pir acy ”); id. at 68 (concl uding that, unli ke testi monial evidence, “nontest imonial hearsay . . . [may be] exem pted . . . from Co nf rontat ion Cl au se s crutiny a lto ge the r.” ); accord United Stat es v. Logan , 419 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Ci r. 2 00 5) ( “In

ge ne ral , s tat em en ts o f c o-c on sp irator s in fu rth eranc e o f a

co ns pir acy

are
no n-t est im on ial .” ). CO NC LU SI ON For the reas ons stated he rein and in a n accompanying summary order, the judgments of the distr ict court are AFFIRMED.