2009 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 6-18-2009 

# U SA v . T yrone Ro ane 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 . 08-3986

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_2009

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 2009 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 . T yr one Ro ane " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1169. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1169H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 08- 3986

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. TYR ON E RO AN E, 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

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00048- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: J une 18, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

D IA M O N D , D is tr i ct

Judge . T yro n e R o a n e a p p e a ls f ro m h is c o n v ictio n f

o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m or e than fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug tr af fick ing crim e; an d fe lon in p o sses sion o f a firearm . 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1), ( b )(1)(B ); 1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A ), 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). R o a n e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt: 1) i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence ; and 2) s houl d have de cl ar ed a m i s t r i al aft eratl eas tone mem berof the j urybr i efl ys aw R oane i n handcuf fs atthe s t ar tof h i s t r i a l . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. W e r evi ew t he deni al of a s uppr es s i on m ot i on forcl earerr oras t o t he fa ctual fi nd i ng s, and exerci se pl enaryrevi ew of the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s app l i cat i on of law t o those fact s. U nit ed S t at es v. V eal , 45 3 F . 3d 16 4, 16 6 n . 2 (3d C i r. 20 06 ); U nit ed S t at es v. C oles , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e r evi ew t he deni al of a mot i on form i s t r i al forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed S tat es v . R ivas , 4 9 3 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).3 III . B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e P a rties , w e w ill su m m a riz e o n lyth o se f a c ts pert i nen tt o o ur anal y si s. O n M ar ch 27, 2007, a “r el i abl e s our ce” des cr i bed t o W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce a m an w ho w as se ll ing d rug s at 2 2 0 1 N o rth P ine S tr ee t. (A p p . I at 21 . ) A sh o rtti m e later, O ff icers K ur tB r y s on and Shaw n G or don dr ove bythe N or t h Pi ne Str eetaddr es s i n a mar ked vehi cl e and s aw R oane ( w ho m at ched the i nform ant ’ s des cr i pt i on) , s i t t i ng out s i de the re s id e n c e , w h ic h p o lic e la te r l e a rn e d w a s o w n e d b yV ic to ri a J o n e s . (I d . a t 2 1 -2 2 .) W h e n t h e o f

f i c e r s a g a i n d r o v e p a s tth e h o u s e , Bry s o n c a l l e d t o Ro a n e : “ He y , c o me her e. ” ( I d. at22. ) R oane i m m edi at el yj um ped up and r an ont o t he por ch, di s r egar di ng B r y s on’ s r epea t ed di r ect i on t hathe s t op. ( I d. ) A s the pol i ce pur s ued R oane thr ough the J ones hous e, a thi r d offi cer , B r i an W i t t e, w ai t ed behi nd the r es i dence . ( I d. at23. ) R oane l eftt he hous e thr ough t he bac k door , s aw W i t t e, and thr ew tw o w hi t e obj ect s and a bl ack obj ect– w hi ch W i t t e bel i eved w as a handgun – i nt o a nei ghbor i ng y ar d. ( I d. ) R oane then ra n b a c k to th e re a r d o o r o f th e h o u s e , w h e re h e e n c o u n te re d p o lic e , w h o a rr e s te d h im . (I d . a t 2 4 .) R o a n e m o v e d to s u p p re s s , in tera lia , the evi dence pol i ce r ecove r ed fr om the n eigh b o ri n g p rop erty : a blac k h an d g u n an d tw o b ag s o f c o ca ine b ase . (A p p . II at 34 . ) A ft erconduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, the C our tdeni ed R oane’ s M ot i on. ( A pp. I at 2 0 -3 2 .)4

Shor t l yaft erR oane’ s t r i al began on M ar ch 12, 2008, s ecur i t yper s onnel i nform ed C ouns el t hatj ur or s m ayhave a cci dent al l ygl i m ps ed R oane i n handcuf fs as he l eftthe cour t r oom . ( A pp. I I at248- 49. ) T he def ens e i m m edi at el ym oved fora mi s t r i al . ( I d. at 2 4 9 . ) T h e tri al j u d g e d en ied th e M o ti o n w ith o u t prejud ice to re n ew af ter th e juro rs w ere i ndi vi dual l yques t i oned. ( I d. ) T he j udge and the Par t i es agr eed thatt o avoi d cr eat i ng pr ej udi ce, t he voirdir e w oul d noti ncl ude anyexpl i ci tr efe r ence t o R oane be i ng h a n d c u f f e d . (Id . at 2 5 4 -6 3 .) T h e trial ju d g e th u s a sk e d e a c h ju ro r w h e th e r h e o r sh e : 1) had seen R oan e aft er the jur ors w ere di sm i ssed for l un ch; and 2 ) hear d an y on e el se m ent i on s eei ng R oane a ft ert he j ur or s w er e di s m i s s ed. I f a j ur orans w er ed y es t o ei t her ques t i on, t he j udge as ked w hether : 1) thati nform at i on aff ect ed the j ur or ’ s abi l i t yt o j udge R oane f ai r l yand i m par t i al l y ; and 2) the j ur orunder s t ood t hatR oane w as pr es um ed i nnocentand thatt he G overnm entbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng hi m gui l tybey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. ( Id . a t 2 6 5 -8 0 .) D u rin g in d iv id u a l voirdir e : 1) a j ur ors ai d he s aw R oane i n handcuf fs , butdi d not di s cus s i tw i t h any one; 2) a j ur ors t at ed thats he hea r d t hat“s om e” j ur or s had s een Roane i n handcuf

fs and thatt hi s w as di s cus s ed byatl eas tthr ee j ur or s ; and 3) a j ur ors t at ed that he hea r d “a f

ew j okes m ade” among t he j ur or s thatR oane c oul d notfl ee be caus e he w as in h a n d c u f

f s. (Id .) T h e se ju ro rs a lso sta ted th a t n o th in g th e yh a d se e n o r h e a rd w o u ld aff ectt hei rabi l i t yt o deci de the ca s e fa i r l yand i m par t i al l y , thattheyunder s t ood t hat R o a n e is p re su m e d in n o c e n t an d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g g u ilt5

bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ( I d. ) C r edi t i ng the j ur or s ’ t es t i m ony , the j udge aga i n deni ed R oan e’s renew ed m oti on for a m i stri al , and cauti on ed the enti re j uryas fol l ow s: Y ou m us tm ake y ourdeci s i on, as y ou know , i n t hi s cas e bas ed onl yon t he evidence thaty ou see and hear i n thi s courtroom . D o n ot l etrum ors, su sp icio n s, o r a n yth in g e lse th a t y o u m a yse e o r h e a r o u tsid e o f th is c o u r t r o o m i n f

l u e n c e yo u rd e c i s i o n i n a n y w a y. (I d . a t 2 9 2 .) I n i t s fi nal i ns t ruct i ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tagai n caut i oned the j uryr es pect i ng t he G o v ern m en t’ s b u rde n o f p roo f a n d the p resu m p ti o n o f in n o ce n ce . In a d d it ion , the C o u rt agai n r emi nded the j ur yof i t s obl i gat i on t o be fa i rand t o deci de the ca s e s ol el yon t he e v id e n c e p re s e n te d in C o u rt . (A p p . II I a t 5 7 4 -8 8 .) I V. A lth o u g h R o a n e c o n ten d s th a t th e p o lice o f f ice rs la c k e d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to conductan i nves t i gat i ve s t op, he does notar gue thatthei rs ei zur e of the gun and drugs w as t he r es ul tof thats t op. Pr es um abl ythi s i s beca us e the pol i ce ne verconduct ed an i nves t i gat i ve s t op of R oane, w ho fl ed as s oon as the pol i ce c al l ed t o hi m . T hus , the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatD efe ndantw as not“s ei zed” unt i l aft erhe d iscard ed h is gu n an d d rug s. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C ran d all , 5 5 4 F . 3 d 7 9 , 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A s t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned, m er e pol i ce pur s ui tof a f l eei ng i ndi vi dual does n o t con sti tute a sto p o r a se izure . R athe r, a F o u rth A m en d m en t st o p o r seizu re o cc u rs onl yonce the i ndi vi dual s ubm i t s t o t he author i t yof l aw enfor cementori s s ubj ectt o the6

a p p l i c a t i o n o f

p h y s i c a l f

o r c e . Ca l i f

o r n i a v . Ho d a r i D. , 4 9 9 U. S . 6 2 1 , 6 2 6 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ An arr es tr equi r es ei t herphy s i cal for ce . . . or , w her e thati s abs ent , s ubm i s s i on t o t he as s er t i on of author i t y . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , the H odar i D . C our thel d t hatbeca us e the fl eei ng defe ndanthad di s car ded contr aband be for e he w as s ei zed bypol i ce, the contr aband w as n o t th e f ru it o f th a t se izu re a n d n o t su b jec t to su p p re ss io n . Id . at 6 2 6 . W e h a v e h e ld sim il arly . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . B row n , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B ecause the poli ce did no tph y si cal l ysei ze R oan e and R oan e did not ot herw i se s ubm i tt o t he off

i cer s ’ author i t ybefor e di s car di ng the gun and drugs , ther e w as no i nves t i gat i ve s t op – oranyot herFour t h A m endments ei zur e – thatpr ece ded orcompel l ed R oane’ s abandonmentof the gun and drugs . See U ni t ed St at es v. V al ent i ne, 232 F. 3d 350, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “[I ] f the pol i ce make a s how of author i t yand the s us pectdoes nots ubm i t , t her e i s no s ei zur e. ”) . A ccor di ngl y , beca us e the r ecove r yof the contr aband w as nott he frui tof anyFour t h A m endmentvi ol at i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed R oan e’s m oti on t o sup press . R oane a l s o ar gues t hatt he tr i al j udge s houl d have de cl ar ed a mi s t r i al aft era j ur or b rie f lysa w R o a n e in h a n d c u f f s. W ith o th e r c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls, w e h a v e lo n g h e ld th a t a br i ef, uni nt ended gl i m ps e of a defe ndanti n handcuf fs i s noti nher ent l ypr ej udi ci al and does notr equi r e a mi s t r i al w i t houtan af fi r m at i ve s how i ng of ac tual pr ej udi ce. See U n it ed S tat es v . C h rza n o w sk i, 5 0 2 F . 2 d 5 7 3 , 5 7 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 4 ) (“T h e f ac t th at j u rors m aybr i efl ys ee a defe ndanti n handcuf fs i s nots o i nher ent l ypr ej udi ci al as t o r equi r e a7

m i s t r i al . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Si m ps on, 950 F. 2d 1519, 1522 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( col l ect i ng ca ses). Ro a n e b e l i e v e s h e ma d e o u ta c tu a l p r e j u d i c e th r o u g h th e i n c o n s i s t e n ta n s we r s t wo j ur or s gave on voirdir e : 1) one jurort est i fi ed thatshe hea rd atl eastthree j urors dis cuss t hatR oane w as i n handcuf fs , y etonl yone otherj ur oradmi t t ed hea r i ng i tdi s cus s ed; and 2) the o nlyj uror t o ack no w l edg e seei ng R oan e i n h and cuff s st at ed thathe d i d n ot di scuss i tw i t h any one. T hes e i ncons i s t enci es ar e nots i gni fi cant . T he tr i al j udge as ked j ur or s onl ygener al ques t i ons r egar di ng w hat , i f anyt hi ng, theym i ghthave s een orhear d aft erbei ng d ism iss e d f

o r lu n c h . T h a t a ju ro r m a yn o t h a v e th o u g h t to m e n tio n se e in g R o a n e in h a n d c u f f s – o r h e a ri n g a n o th e r j u ro r d is c u s s it – h a rd ly in d ic a te s th a t th e ju ro r w a s lyin g . O n t he contr ary , t he D i s t r i ctC our t– w hi ch w as cert ai nl yi n t he bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne cre d ibil ity– fo u n d that the ju rors w ere tru thf u l. M o reo v er, al l th e c h all en g ed juro rs c o n f irm e d u n d e r o a th b o th th e ir a b ili tyto b e f a ir a n d im p a rtial to R o a n e a n d th e ir under s t andi ng t hatt he G overnm enthad the bur den of pr ovi ng R oane gui l t ybey ond a rea so n ab le do u b t. M o reo v er, as w e h av e d esc ri b ed , the ju d g e a lso g av e the en ti re jury f u r t h e ri n s t ru c t i o n s r e i t e r a t i n g t h e i ro b l i g a t i o n t o b e f a i ra n d f o l l o w th e l a w. I n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e bel i eve thatR oane ha s nots how n actual pr ej udi ce a nd t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora mi s t r i al . See U n it ed S tat es v . W aldo n , 2 0 6 F . 3 d 5 9 7 , 6 0 8 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).8 V. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.