NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

NO. 10-4721

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRAD WILLIAMS,

Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 1-10-cr-00020-001)

District Judge: Hon. William W. Caldwell

__________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 12, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, SCIRICA, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 14, 2011)

__________

OPINION

__________
2

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Brad Williams was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(D). He was sentenced to thirteen months 

imprisonment. Williams asks this court to vacate the judgment of conviction and to

remand for a new trial for two reasons. He argues that the District Court committed plain 

error by (1) admitting the testimony of two law enforcement officers that he had refused

to consent to a search of his home and (2) admitting the statement by an officer that may

have suggested a comment on Williams’ exercise of his right to proceed to trial. We will 

affirm.1

During trial, two officers testified that Williams had refused to consent to a search 

of his home.2 Williams argues that this testimony was designed to show a consciousness 

 

1

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This

court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This court reviews the District 

Court’s admission of testimony for plain error where, as here, the defendant did not 

object to the testimony at issue during trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Under this standard, 

we must find that an error was committed, the error was plain, and the error affected the 

defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 260-61 (3d Cir. 

2001). If those conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited 

error, but only if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings.” Id. at 261 (internal quotation omitted).

2

The challenged testimony was as follows:

Q: [Assistant United States Attorney]: Did you ask for consent to search the 

apartment?

A: [Inspector Corrado]: Yes, we did.

Q: Did you receive consent?

A: No. He refused consent.
3

of guilt. He points out that this court has held that an invocation of the protection 

afforded by the Fourth Amendment to be free of unreasonable search and seizure cannot 

be used by a prosecutor as evidence of guilt. See United States v. Thame, 846 F.2d 200, 

207 (3d Cir. 1988). The Government counters that the testimony was elicited to explain 

the steps the officers took before obtaining a search warrant. We see no error in the 

admission of these statements.

Williams also argues that the statement of one of the officers was a comment on 

Williams’ exercise of his right to proceed to trial. Indeed, it would have been error if the 

prosecutor or a Government witness had commented on Williams’ exercise of his Sixth 

Amendment right to proceed to a jury trial. See Cunningham v. Zant, 928 F.2d 1006, 

1019 (11th Cir. 1991); see also United States ex rel. Macon v. Yeager, 476 F.2d 613, 616 

(3d Cir. 1973). The allegations stem from Inspector Corrado’s response to a question 

about why he had not attempted to take fingerprints: “Just an investigative step I chose 

not to take. I didn’t think we would honestly be here.” App. at 81. Williams argues that 

the statement was “obviously a comment” on Williams’ decision to go to trial and an 

improper opinion of guilt. Appellant’s Br. at 14. A review of the testimony does not 

easily lead to that inference. We see no error in the admission of this statement.

 

App. at 58. Later, Trooper Fry testified:

[Trooper Fry]: At that point, I asked him for consent to search the residence, [to]

which he didn’t really provide an answer, and then I believe that he said no and 

that he wanted an attorney. 

App. at 113. 
4

Even if we were to accept Williams’ argument, Williams has not demonstrated 

that he suffered any prejudice. The evidence of Williams’ guilt was overwhelming. The 

prosecution presented evidence at trial that Williams picked up a package that the postal 

authorities had determined contained a large quantity of marijuana, addressed to a 

fictitious person, and attempted to take it back to his apartment. When confronted about 

the package, Williams fabricated a story about picking up the package for a neighbor, a 

fact that his neighbors denied. Even more significant, police found additional marijuana 

in quantities consistent with distribution, digital scales and packaging material inside 

Williams’ apartment. Given this evidence it is very unlikely that the outcome of the trial 

would have been different if the challenged testimony had not been admitted. There was 

no plain error in admitting the testimony. 

Based on the foregoing, we will affirm.