2010 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 3-30-2010 

# U SA v . C hes ney J ones 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 . 08-2504

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_2010

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 2010 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 . C he s ney J one s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1617. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1617NOT 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- 2504

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. CH ESN EY J O N ES, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C ri m inal N o . ) 07 -cr– 0 2 0 8 -1 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

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

on M ar ch 23, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S , and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed M ar ch 30, 2010)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. C hes neyJ ones appea l s fr om a j uryver di ctfi ndi ng hergui l t yof: unl aw ful p o s s e s s i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a tl e a s t5 0 g r a ms o f

c r a c k c o c a i n e , a n d a tl e a s t5 k i l o g r a ms of co cai ne h y drochlori de; i nter st at e t ravel i n aid of racketeer i ng ; m aking fals e st at em ents ; and con spi racyt o d i stri bu t e drugs. Jones w as sent enced t o a tot al of 2 5 y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent . J ones cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byadmi t t i ng i nt o evi dence
r ecor di ngs of conve r s at i ons i n vi ol at i on of the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, admi t t i ng t ext
m essages i nto evi den ce w i t ho ut al l ow i ng Jones t o ex am i ne the ph on e on w hich these
m essages w ere s t ored, and givi ng an im proper j uryi nst ruct i on regar ding Jone s’ t es t i m ony . W e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es and as s um e thei rfami l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ctual and p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f

th is c a s e . W e w ill a f

f ir m . A ft erherarr es tfora par ol e vi ol at i on, J ones as ked t o s peak t o D rug E nfor cement A gent s and admi t t ed thats he w as a drug “runner ” and ha d s uppl i ed mul t i pl e s hi pm ent s of
coca i ne hy dr ochl or i de t o a buy er , L ance H arper , forappr oxi m at el yone y ear . J ones agr eed t o cooper at e w i t h l aw enfor cementand made r ecor ded phone c al l s t o H arperand
o ther ind ividu als i n v o lved in d rug tr af fick ing . D u ri n g o n e re co rde d m ee ti n g w ith H arp er, J ones at t empt ed t o t i p hi m off thats he w as cooper at i ng w i t h l aw enfor cement . J ones t es t i fi ed athert r i al , r etr act ed eve r yt hi ng s he had t ol d agent s , and deni ed bei ng i nvol ved
w i th drug t r aff

i cki ng.3

I . R ecor di ngs J ones cont ends t hatcons ens ual l yr ecor ded conve r s at i ons betw een he r s el f and he r all eg ed co -co n sp ir ators sh o u ld n o t hav e b ee n ad m itted in to ev iden ce b ec au se th eyare t es t i m oni al and ther efor e vi ol at e the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, acc or di ng t o C r aw f or d v. W as hi ngt on , 541 U . S. 36 ( 2004) . I n C raw f ord , the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at ou t- o f-c o u rt st at em ents t hat ar e t est i m on i al are barr ed b ythe C on front at i on C l ause un l ess the w i t ness is u n a v a ila b le a n d th e d e f e n d a n t h a d a p re v io u s o p p o rt u n ity to c ro s s -e x a m in e th e w itn e s s . 541 U . S. at68. H ow ever , w e have hel d t hat“‘ par t yadmi s s i ons and co- cons pi r at or por t i ons ’ of di s put ed t ape r ecor di ngs ar e ‘ nont es t i m oni al . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B obb , 471 F. 3d 491, 499 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Hendr i cks , 395 F. 3d 173, 183- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ) . T he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e does notbarthe admi s s i on of nont es t i m oni al
s t at ement s i f theyar e “s ubj ectt o a fi r m l yr oot ed hea r s ayexce pt i on. ” A l brecht v. H orn , 485 F. 3d 103, 134 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T her efor e, admi t t i ng the r ecor ded conve r s at i ons of J o n e s a n d h e r c o -c o n s p ir a to rs in to e v id e n c e d id n o t v io la te th e C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e . J ones nextar gues t hatt he conve r s at i ons w er e hea r s ayand the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed in a d m itt in g th e c o n v e rsa tio n s u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ). U n d e r R u le 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) , outof courts t at ement s bya co- cons pi r at orar e admi s s i bl e i f the pr eponder ance of the evi dence s how s that( 1) a cons pi r acyexi s t ed; ( 2) thatthe def endant
a n d th e d e c lar a n t w e re m e m b e rs o f th e c o n sp ira c y ; an d (3 ) th e sta tem e n t w a s m a d e in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

a n d in th e c o u rs e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . B obb , 471 F. 3d at498. J ones ur ges4

thatbeca us e the r ecor di ngs w er e made aft ers he w as arr es t ed and w hi l e s he w as coo perat i ng w i t h law enfo rcem ent, t heycann ot be i n fu rtherance o f or du ri ng the co urse of a c ons pi r acybeca us e the cons pi r acyhad ende d. H ow ever , the governm entpr ovi ded evi dence t hatdur i ng J ones ’ conver s at i ons w i t h H arpers he att empt ed t o w arn hi m that th e yw e re b e in g re c o rd e d - th e re f o re , the c o n sp ira c yh a d n o t en d e d a n d th e sta tem e n ts
w e re m a d e in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e c o n sp ira c y . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n in a llo w in g th e re c o rd e d s ta te m e n ts to b e a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e .

I I . T ext M es s ages J ones nextcont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byadmi t t i ng t extm es s ages found
o n h e r c e ll p h o n e b u t n o t a llo w in g J o n e s to p e rs o n a lly e x a m in e th e p h o n e d u ri n g tr ia l. W hi l e the governm entw as pr es ent i ng i t s cas e attr i al , J ones as ked i f s he coul d exami ne hercel l phone t o att empt t o pr ove thatt extm es s ages t o H arperw er e cr eat ed af t ers he w as i n cus t odyand ther efor e musthave be en pl ant ed bygovernm entagent s . J ones ’ couns el h a d p re v io u s ly b e e n g iv e n a c c e s s to th e p h o n e a n d h a d s e e n th e te x t m e s s a g e s a t is s u e . A . 225- 29. T he governm entobj ect ed t o J ones handl i ng the phone be caus e of “ gr ave c o n c e rn s a b o u t p lac in g a v a lu a b le p iec e o f e v id e n c e in to th e h a n d s o f th e d e f e n d a n t to per s onal l ym ani pul at e thi s . ” Id . I ns t ead, the governm entoffe r ed t o s end the phone t o a labo ratoryw h ere an ex p ert co u ld ex am ine it t o d eterm ine w h en the tex t m essa g es w ere w ri tte n . Id .5

O n a p p e a l, Jo n e s u rg e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re f u sa l to a llo w h e r to p e rso n a lly exami ne the phone dur i ng t he tr i al i s a B r ady v io la tio n . B r ady v. Mar yland , 373 U . S. 83 (1 9 6 3 ), r e q u ir e s th a t p ro s e c u to rs d is c lo s e p o te n tia lly e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e to th e d e f e n s e . H er e, w her e pr os ecut or s al l ow ed J ones ’ couns el t o acc es s the phone a nd vi ew the t ext
m es s ages , and, w hen J ones as ked t o handl e the phone dur i ng the tr i al , offe r ed t o have the phone exa m i ned byan expe r t , t her e w as no B r ady v io la tio n . I I I . Jury I nst ruct i on L as t l y , J ones cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n gi vi ng a j uryi ns t ruct i on that unfai r l ys i ngl ed outJ ones ’ t es t i m onyas pot ent i al l ybi as ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed th e ju ryth a t: th e d e f

e n d a n t, C h e s n e yJ o n e s , h a s ta k e n th e w itn e s s s ta n d . Y ou s houl d exami ne and e val uat e hert es t i m onyj us tas y ou w o u ld th e tes tim o n yo f

a n yw itn e ss . It i s f

o r y o u to d e c id e to w hatext ent , i f atal l , M s . J ones ’ s i nt er es ti n t he r es ul tof her p r o s e c u t i o n m a y h a v e a f f e c t e d o rc o l o r e d h e rt e s t i m o n y. A . 353. I n the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gener al char ge r egar di ng w i t nes s cr edi bi l i t y , i ts ai d “[t ] he p a rties th e m se lv e s, th a t is th e g o v e rn m e n t an d th e d e f e n d a n t, ha v e a n o b v io u s in ter e st [ in th e o u tco m e o f

th e c a se ].” A . 3 5 2 . T h e re f o re , itw a s u n n e c e ss a ryf o r th e C o u rt to re itera te th a t Jo n e s’ h a d a p e rso n a l in ter e st in th e o u tco m e o f c a se in a se p a ra te i nst ruct i on . W hil e such a n instruct i on that s i ng l es out the d efen dan t ’s i nter esti n the case is n o t a d v is a b le , w e f

in d th a t h e re it d id n o t c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r.W e not e thats ever al court s of appe al s have e xpr es s ed conc ern as t o t he us e of 1 instruction s tha t si n g le ou t th e d ef en d an t’ s interest i n the c ase ev en tho u g h theyd o n ’t c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. G ai nes , 4 5 7 F . 3 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 5 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); U nited S tates v. B ear K i l l er, 5 3 4 F . 2 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 9 -60 (8th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sal etko , 4 5 2 F .2 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 8 -9 9 (7 th C ir . 1 9 7 1 ). 6 I n R eagan v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 157 U . S. 301, 304- 05 ( 1895) , t he Supr eme Courtappr oved the fol l ow i ng i ns t ruct i on:

Y ou s houl d es peci al l y l ook t o t he i nt er es tw hi ch the r es pect i ve w i t nes s es have i n t he s ui t , ori n i t s r es ul t . W her e t he w i t nes s has a di r ectper s onal i nt er es ti n the re s ul t of t he s ui t , t he t empt at i on is s tro n g to c o lo r, p e rv e rt, o r w ith h o ld th e f a c ts. T h e law p e rm its t he def endant , athi s ow n r eques t , t o t es t i fyin h is o w n behal f. T h e d e f e n d a n t h e re h a s a v a iled h im se lf o f th is p riv ileg e . H is tes tim o n yis b e f

o r e y o u , an d y o u m u st d e ter m in e h o w f a r it is cr edi bl e. T he deep per s onal i nt er es tw hi ch he mayhave i n the r es ul tof the s ui ts houl d be cons i dered b y the j uryi n w ei ghi ng hi s evi dence , and i n det erm i ni ng how far , ort o w hatext ent , i f at a ll, it i s w o rth yo f

c re d it. I n R eagan, t he C our thel d t hata tr i al cour tm ayi ns t ructthe j urythattheym ay cons i derthe def

endant ’ s “dee p per s onal i nt er es t ” i n t he out come of t he ca s e, butcannot decl ar e ori m pl yt hatt he def endanthas t es t i fi ed fa l s el y . 157 U . S. at311. T he i ns t ruct i on her e di d noti m pl yt hatJ ones had t es t i fi ed fa l s el yand ther efor e i s notr ever s i bl e err or u n d er R eagan . 1 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l A FFIRM J ones ’ convi ct i ons and
s e n te n c e .