FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JULY 30, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14859 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 5 8 - C R - OR L - 1 9 - DA B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T Y R E E R E N A R D W I L S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 30, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T y r e e W ils o n , th r o u g h c o u n s e l, ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to2

pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . I. O n app ea l , W i l son chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s j uri sdi ct i on , ar gu i ng that the appl i ca t i on of the C on trol l ed S ub st ance s A ct(“ C S A ”) i s uncon st i tut i on al be c aus e he w a s the vi c t i m of outr a ge ous gove rnm e ntc onduc t . H e a r gue s tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t f

ab r ic a te d th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y a n d e n g a g e d in c r im in a l a c tiv ity in im p le m e n tin g th e in v e s tig a tio n , p r im a r ily v iath e u s e o f c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a n ts .

“ W e r evi ew the const i tut i on al i ty of a[c hal l enged] st atut e de no vo . ” U ni ted Stat es v. B al l i ng er , 39 5 F . 3d 12 18 , 12 25 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc). W e r evi ew is s u e s n o t r a is e d b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. R odri gu ez , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A n unpr e s e rve d e rr orw i l l be corr ec t ed on l y i f i ti s “ (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” I

d. ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . W i l s on’ s a r gum e ntc a l l s i nt o que s t i on C ongr e s s ’ s author i ty unde rthe C om m e r c e C l aus e t o pr ohi bi tthe c onduc tw i th w hi c h he w a s c ha r ge d. T he C om m e r c e C l aus e gi ve s C ongr e s s the pow e rt o r e gul a t e thr e e type s of a c t i vi ty : ( 1) “th e c h a n n e ls o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ;” ( 2 ) “th e in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te com m er ce , and p er sons or thi ng s i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce ; ” and (3) “ ac t i vi t i es that3

subst ant i al l y a ff

ec ti nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” G on zales v. R ai ch , 545 U . S . 1, 16- 17, 125 S . C t . 2195, 2205, 162 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 2005) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s uphe l d the C S A a s av a lid e x e r c is e o f C o n g r e s s io n a l p o w e r . I d. a t 9 , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 2 2 0 1 . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtha d j ur i s di c t i on i n thi s c a s e a nd W i l s on’ s a r gum e nt is w ith o u t m e r it. W i l s on a l s o a r gue s tha ttha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c onduc ti n thi s c a s e vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tgove rnm e ntc onduc t , i n r a r e a nd o u tr a g e o u s c ir c u m s ta n c e s , m ig h t v io la te th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. U

ni ted Stat es v. E de n fie ld , 99 5 F . 2d 19 7, 20 0 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). G ov ernm enti nfi l tra t i on of cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty and the furni shi ng of som ethi ng of val ue t o the cr i m i nal i s are cogn i ze d a n d p e rm is s ib le m e a n s o f in v e s tig a tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. Sa nchez , 138 F . 3d 1410, 1413 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . “ [ A ] l though agove rnm e nta ge ntm a y pr ovi de s om e thi ng of va l ue t o ac r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e , he m a y noti ns t i ga t e the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , pr ovi de th e p la c e , e q u ip m e n t, s u p p lie s , a n d k n o w - h o w , a n d ru n th e e n tir e o p e r a tio n w ith on l y m ea ger a ss i st ance fr om the defendant s. ” Ket t v. U ni ted Stat es , 722 F . 2d 687, 6 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . W i l son’ s argum enti s w i tho utm er i t . Iti s an acc ept abl e and const i tut i on al i nve s t i ga t ory t e c hni que t o ut i l i z e c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt s t o pur c ha s e drugs f r om su sp ect ed d ru g d eal ers. T h e g o v ern m en t ’ s co n d u cti n th i s case w as n o to u trag eo u s,4

a n d W ils o n ’s a r g u m e n t c o n f la tin g g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t a n d ju r is d ic tio n is n o b a s is f o ro v e r tu rn in g th e c o n v ic tio n . II. Ne x t , Wi l s o n a r g u e s th a tth e e v i d e n c e wa s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o c o n v i c th i m . He r e l i e s he a vi l y on publ i c pol i c y a r gum e nt s , c ha r a c t e r i z i ng gove rnm e ntdrug i nv es t i gat i on s a s r el i anton “ l i ar ’ s e vi dence. ” H e def i nes “ l i ar ’ s e vi dence” a s e vi de nc e tha ti s c onduc i ve t o f abr i c a t i on. I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , he obj e c t s t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e l i a nc e on a nd us e of c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt s . H e a r gue s tha tthe t es t i m on y of c o-defendant s S haun D aw ki ns and A ntho ny S utt on contra di ct ed ea ch othe r . H e f

urthe ra s s e rt s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s c i r c um s t a nt i a l a nd unr e l i abl e , a nd the j ury c ou l d o nl y have f ou nd hi m gu i l ty vi a “ gu es sw ork” and “c on j ec ture. ”

“ S u f f i c i e n c y o f

th e e v i d e n c e i s aq u e s t i o n o f l a w th a twe r e v i e w de no vo . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . G u

p ta , 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. deni ed , __S. C t . __, N o. 06- 1388, ( M a y 21, 2007) ( m e m . ) . I n r e vi e w i ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e v id e n c e , w e a s k“w h e th e r , a f te rv ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , a n y r a tio n a l tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” I d. a t1193- 94 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . F urthe rm or e , w e w i l l r e s ol ve a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. I

d. a t1194. W e ke e p i n m i nd tha tc r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons a r e the5

s o le p r o v in c e o f

th e ju ry . U

n ite d S ta te s v . Ch a s ta in , 1 9 8 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). I n or de rt o s uppor tac ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i on unde r21 U . S . C . § 846, the go vernm entm ustes t abl i sh that(1) aconspi ra cyexi st ed, (2) the defendanthad k n o w le d g e o f

it, a n d ( 3 ) h e v o lu n ta r ily b e c a m e ap a r t o f it. U ni ted Stat es v. T hom ps on , 422 F . 3d 1285, 1290 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he “ e xi s t e nc e of a n a gr e e m e nt i n a conspi ra cyca se i s r ar el y proven b y di re ctevi dence thatthe conspi ra t ors f orm a l l y e nt e r e d orr e a c he d a n a gr e e m e nt. . . . T he m or e c om m on m e thod of p r o v in g a n a g r e e m e n t is th r o u g h c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” U ni ted Stat es v. G l i nton , 1 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) .

“ [T ] he verynature of aconspi ra cyfr equent l y r equi re s thatthe exi st ence of an a gr e e m e ntbe pr ove d by i nf e r e nc e s f r om the c onduc tof

the a l l e ge d pr i nc i pa l s or fr om ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of a s chem e. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . G o ld , 743 F . 2d 800, 82 4 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). U ncorrobo ra t ed t e s t i m ony of

ac o- c ons pi r a t orm a y be e nough t o s uppor tac onvi c t i on i f the te s tim o n y is n o t in c r e d ib le o n its f a c e o ro th e rw is e in s u b s ta n tia l. U ni ted Stat es v. G a r c ia , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 7 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . S uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e s uppor t s the j ury ’ s gui l ty ve r di c t . S utt on s t a t e d tha the r e c e iv e d d ru g s f

r o m W ils o n a n d s h a r e d th e p r o f its o f d ru g s a le s w ith W ils o n .6

D a w k in s s ta te dth a t h e r e c e iv e d d ru g s f r o m W ils o n a n d p r o v id e d d ru g s to W ils o n . C o -co n sp i rat o rs’ t est i m o n y can b e en o u g h t o su p p o rta co n v i ct i o n , an d i n th i s case th e o f f e r e d te s tim o n y w a s n o t s o in c r e d ib le th a t th e ju ry c o u ldn o t h a v e c r e d ite d it. M or e ove r , the t e s t i m ony f r om l a w e nf

or c e m e nta ge nt s pl a c i ng W i l s on a nd S utt on t og ether before and aft erthe m on i t ored drug deal s s up po rt s S utt on ’ s t es t i m on y. In lig h t o f th e tr ia l te s tim o n y , th e ju ry c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t W ils o n c o n s p ir e d to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c kc o c a in e . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d nore rri n de ny i ng W i l s on’ s m ot i on f oraj udgm e nt o f a c q u itta l. III. W i l son n extcont ends thatce rt ai n evi dent i ary rul i ng s by the di stri ctcourt w er e e rr on eous. W i l son argues thatthe adm i ss i on of t aped rec ordi ng s betw ee n D a w ki ns a nd ac onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a ntw a s e rr one ous be c aus e the r e c or di ngs ( 1) cont ai ned st at em ent s f

rom a non -t es t i fy i ng confi dent i al i nform antand (2) w er e in c o m p le te a n d m is r e p r e s e n ta tiv e . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e r e c o r d s u p p o r ts h is obj e c t i ons r e ga r di ng the a dm i s s i on of s t a t e m e nt s he m a de dur i ng the booki ng pr oc e s s abouthi s ni c kna m e a nd pl a c e of r e s i de nc e . F i na l l y , he a r gue s tha tthe D E A ha s a n unof

f i c i a l pol i c y of

e ns ur i ng tha ti nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt s a r e ke pt f r o m d e f e n d a n ts b e f

o r e tr ia l.7

W e r e v ie w e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. Br o wn , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 4 - 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 126 S . C t . 1570 (2 0 0 6 ). W e rev i ew co n st i tu t i o n al q u est i o n s de no vo . U n i te d S ta te s v . Br o wn , 364 F . 3d 12 66 , 12 68 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). W ils o n c o n te n d s th a t th e c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a n t’s r e c o r d e d s ta te m e n ts shou l d n othave been adm i tt ed because they are hear say. H ears ayi s an o ut -ofcourtst at em ent“ offe re d i n evi dence t o p rove the truth o f the m att eras se rt ed. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 80 1(c) . A confi dent i al i nform ant ’ s s t at em entm ade duri ng a t aped c onve r s a t i on w i th the de f e nda ntc a n be a dm i tt e d t o pr ovi de c ont e xt , s o l ong a s the in f o rm a n t’s s ta te m e n ts a r e n o t a d m itte d f o rth e tru th a s s e r te d . See U ni ted Stat es v. B y r om , 910 F . 2d 725, 737 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . T he C onf r ont a t i on C l aus e “ doe s not b a rth e u s e o f

te s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n ts f o rp u rp o s e s o th e rth a n e s tab lis h in g th e tru th of the m att eras se rt ed. ” Cr aw f ord v . W as hi ngton , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 5 9 n .9 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 13 54 , 13 69 n. 9, 15 8 L . E d. 2d 17 7 (20 04 ). T he adm i ss i on of the re cordi ng s w as prop erbecause the confi dent i al i nform ant ’ s s t at em ent s w er e notadm i tt ed for the truth o f w hathe sa i d, bu tra ther fo r c o n tex t. T h e c o u rt in stru cted th e ju ry n o t t o cr ed itth e c o n fid en ti al in fo rm an t’ s s t a t e m e nt s a s truth, be c aus e the y w e r e onl y be i ng pr ovi de d a s c ont e xtf or D a w k in s ’s s ta te m e n ts . A c c o r d in g ly , th e r e c o r d in g w a s n o t h e a r s a y , n o rd id it8

vi ol at e W i l son’ s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o con fr on t at i on because the confi dent i al in f o rm a n t’s s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t o f f e r e d f o rth e tru th o f

th e m a tte ra s s e r te d . W i l s on’ s a r gum e nttha tthe r e c or di ng w a s i nc om pl e t e a nd m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of the c onve r s a t i on i s notde ve l ope d be y ond m e r e a l l e ga t i on, a nd i tw a s nota n abus e of d is c r e tio n f

o rth e c o u rt to a d m it th e r e c o r d in g in to e v id e n c e . W i l s on a l s o a r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e ntc om m i tt e d adi s c ove ry vi ol a t i on by f a i l i ng t o i nf

orm hi m tha ti ti nt e nde d t o i ntr oduc e a ttr i a l s t a t e m e nt s he m a de dur i ng booki ng. T he gove rnm e ntm us tdi s c l os e the s ubs t a nc e of a ny or a l s t a t e m e nt m ade by the defendanti n res po nse t o i nt errogat i on by a per son the defendantkn ew to b e ag o v e rn m e n t a g e n t if th e g o v e rn m e n t in te n d s to u s e th e s ta te m e n t a t tr ia l. F e d. R . C r i m . P . 16( a ) ( 1) ( A ) . W e w i l l notr e ve r s e ac onvi c t i on ba s e d on a di s c ove ry vi ol a t i on unl e s s the appe l l a ntc a n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe vi ol a t i on p r e ju d ic e d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni te d State s v . Q ui nn , 123 F . 3d 1415, 1423 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . “ S u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e i s e s t ab l i s h e d wh e n th e d e f e n d a n ts h o ws thathe w as un du l y s urpri se d and di d n othave an adequat e opp ortun i ty t o p re pare a defe nse or thatthe m i st ake had a subst ant i al i nfl uence on the j ury. ” U ni ted Stat es v. R i vera , 9 4 4 F .2 d 1 5 6 3 , 1 5 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . A l a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c e r ’ s r e que s tf

orr out i ne i nf

orm a t i on dur i ng booki ng i s nota n i nt e rr oga t i on, a nd, the r e f or e , i s nots ubj e c tt o Mi r anda v . A r i z ona , 3849

U . S . 43 6, 86 S . C t . 16 02 , 16 L . E d. 2d 69 4 (19 66 ). U ni te d State s v . Sw e e t i ng , 933 F . 2d 96 2, 96 5 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o a dm i tW i l s on’ s booki ng s t a t e m e nt s doe s not r e qui r e r e ve r s a l . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , r out i ne que s t i oni ng dur i ng the booki ng pr oc e s s doe s notc ons t i tut e i nt e rr oga t i on, a nd, the r e f or e , the s t a t e m e nt s di d not v i o l at e W i l so n ’ s Mi r anda r ig h ts . T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t it d id n o t c o m m it ad is c o v e ry v io la tio n b e c au s e W ils o n ’s c o m m e n t ab o u t liv in g in G e o r g iato a v o id a rr e s tw a s d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g th e d e t e n t i o n h e a r i n g , a n d th e “ Bl a c k n e t ” n i c k n a me w as on W i l son’ s f

i ng erpri ntcard, w hi ch w as avai l abl e t o the defendant . E ven as sum i ng thatthe det ent i on hear i ng di sc ussi on and fi ng erpri ntcard di d n otsa t i sf y the gove rnm e nt ’ s obl i ga t i on, the c our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by a l l ow i ng the statem en ts to b e h ea rd b y th e ju ry b ec au se th e e v id en ce d idn o t v io late W il so n ’s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . W i l s on’ s c onvi c t i on pr i nc i pa l l y r e l i e d upon the t e s t i m ony of S utt on a nd D a w ki ns , tw o c o- c ons pi r a t or s w ho di r e c t l y i m pl i c a t e d W i l s on i n the prov i si on and sal e of i l l egal drug s. A cc ordi ng l y, W i l son h as fa i l ed t o est abl i sh that an y p o ssi b l e d i sco v ery v i o l at i o n affected h i s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. AF F I RME D.