2005 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 3-25-2005 

# U SA v . F i she r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2905

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . F i she r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1433. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/14331 

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 03- 2905 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. DAVI D LEE FI SHER,

Appe l l ant OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e E asternD istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. No. 01- c r - 00769) D istrict Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le R o b ert F . K elly Subm itte d und er

Th ird C ircuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) Dat e : Se pt e m

be r 24, 2004 Befo re : MCK EE , ALD ISER T andGR EE NB ER G, Circ uit Jud ges

( Fi l e d: Mar c h 25, 2005) OPINI ON OF THE COURT AL DISE RT , Circuit

Judg e.2

A ppel l antD avi d L ee Fi s herappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence forpos s es s i on of a l oaded f

i r earm and amm uni t i on bya convi ct ed fe l on. Fi s herw as s ent ence d t o, i nt eral i a, 3 2 7 m o n th s in c a rc e ra tio n . W e m u st d e c id e w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt: (1 ) e rre d in i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yr egar di ng evi dence of fl i ght ; ( 2) exce eded the perm i s s i bl e bounds of di s cr et i on by : ( a) r efus i ng t o al l ow Fi s hert o di s m i s s hi s couns el and appoi nta s ubs t i tut e; ( b) admi t t i ng ey ew i t nes s t es t i m ony ; ( c) deny i ng Fi s her ’ s r eques tfora mi s t r i al ; and ( d) a d m itt in g th e p ro se c u to r’s re b u ttal c o m m e n ts; a n d (3 ) e rre d b ya p p ly in g e n h a n c e m e n ts to F i s h e r ’ s s e n t e n c e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1291 ( 2000) . W e w i l l aff i r m t he convi ct i on, vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. - - - , 125 S. C t . 738 (2 0 0 5 ). I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s , pr ocedur al hi s t or yand cont ent i ons pr es ent ed, w e w i l l notr eci t e them exceptas nece s s aryt o t he di s cus s i on. II. Fi s hercont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tus urped the j ur y ’ s fac t - fi ndi ng funct i on w hen i ts t at ed thatt he j ur yhad “he ar d evi dence t hatt he def endant , D avi d L ee Fi s her , fl ed fr om t he s cene and fr om pol i ce of fi cer s i m m edi at el ypr i ort o hi s arr es t. . . . ” B eca us e Fi s her d id n o t m a k e a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n , w e re v iew th e in stru c tio n f o r p lain e rro r. It is3

t he def endant ’ s bur den t o es t abl i s h pl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 725, 734- 735 ( 1993) . T o do s o, he mustpr ove that : ( 1) t he courterr ed; ( 2) t he err orw as obvi ous undert he l aw att he t i m e of r evi ew ; and ( 3) t he err oraff ect ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s — t he o u tco m e o f

th e p ro c e e d in g . Jo h n so n v . U n ited S tate s, 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 (1 9 9 7 ). If a ll th re e e lem e n ts a re e sta b lish e d , the c o u rt m a y , b u t n e e d n o t, ex e rc ise its d isc re tio n to aw ar d r el i ef. I d. H er e, t her e w as no pl ai n err orbeca us e the courtcondi t i oned cons i der at i on of t he evi dence bys t at i ng: “I f pr oved, fl i ghtof t he def endantaft erhe know s t hathe maybe arr es t ed fort he comm i s s i on of a c r i m e, m ayt end t o pr ove thatt he d ef en d an t believe d h e w as g u il ty . ” (T ri al t ran s. at 83 . ) III . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r efus al t o di s m i s s Fi s her ’ s couns el and appoi nt s ubs t i tut e couns el forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. G ol dber g, 67 F. 3d 1092, 1098 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . T o qual i fyfors ubs t i tut i on of couns el , a def endantm us tdemonst r at e good caus e, s uch as a “c onfl i ctof i nt er es t , a compl et e br eakdow n i n comm uni cat i on, oran irre c o n c ilab le c o n f

lict w ith th e a tto rn e y .” Id . “If th e d istric t co u rt d e n ies th e re q u e st to su b stitu te c o u n se l an d th e d e f e n d a n t d e c id e s to p ro c e e d w ith u n w a n ted c o u n se l, w e w ill notfi nd a Si xt h A m endment vi ol at i on unl es s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s ‘ good caus e’ det er m i nat i on w as cl ear l yerr oneous ort he di s t r i ctcour tm ade no i nqui r yi nt o t he r eas on f o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t's r e q u e s t to s u b s titu te c o u n s e l.” Id . H er e, Fi s hercont ends t hathi s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o couns el w as vi ol at ed by4

the d istri ct co u rt ’s refu sal t o ap p o int ne w co u n sel. T h e d istri ct co u rtinq u ir ed into F ishe r’s re q u e st f o r a c o n tin u a n c e a n d n e w c o u n se l. Itd e ter m in e d th a t F ish e r’s d isa g re e m e n ts w ith hi s couns el di d notcons t i tut e “good c aus e. ” A ccor di ngl y , t her e w as no abus e of d is c re tio n . Fi s hercont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have i ns t ruct ed hi m t hathe had a r i g h tt o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l f a tt r i a l . F i s h e ra s s e r t e d n o r e a s o n s t o s u p p o r tt h i s c o n t e n t i o n . An exami nat i on of t he r ecor d s how s t hatFi s her ’ s at t or neyw as w el l pr epar ed and pr ovi ded Fi s herw i t h vi gor ous r epr es ent at i on. T he courtw as notobl i gat ed t o advi s e Fi s hert hathe h a d a rig h t to re p re se n t h im se lf a t trial. A t n o tim e d id F ish e r c lea rlya n d u n e q u iv o c a lly r eques tt hathe be pe r m i t t ed t o r epr es enthi m s el f att r i al . See B uhl v. C ooks ey , 233 F. 3d 7 8 3 , 7 9 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (re q u irin g th a t a d e f e n d a n t’s re q u e st f

o r se lf -re p re se n tatio n a t a tr ia l b e m a d e c le a rl ya n d u n e q u iv o c a lly). I V. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence for ab u se o f d iscreti o n . U n it ed S tat es v . S era fin i, 2 3 3 F . 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 8 n . 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). If t he court ’ s rul i ng w as bas ed on an i nt erpr et at i on of t he Feder al R ul es of Evi dence , t he r e v i e w i s d e n o v o . I d . H e r e , F i s h e ra r g u e s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g t h e e ye w i t nes s t es t i m onyof B el i nda B r ow n, w ho i dent i fi ed hi m as bei ng att he s cene of t he cr i m e, beca us e Fi s herw as notgi ven not i ce thats he w as s ubpoenae d and he w as pr ej udi ced. B eca us e B r ow n w as a r eca l ci t r antw i t nes s and had t o be s ubpoenae d on t he5

eve of t he tr i al , t he governm enthad no form al J encks A cts t at ement pr i ort o t r i al . T he g o v e rn m e n t h a d n o o b lig a tio n to p ro v id e so m e th in g to F ish e r th a t d id n o t ex ist. S e e U n ited S tate s v . B e rn a rd , 6 2 5 F .2 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 9 -8 6 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (re jec tin g a c laim t hatt he governm enti s r equi r ed t o cr eat e J encks A ctm at er i al byr ecor di ng every t hi ng a p o tential w itn ess s ay s). W e d eterm ine th at t h ere w as n o erro r. V. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i ons r egar di ng t he management of a tr i al for abus e of di s cr et i on. D uques ne Li ghtC o. v. W es t i nghous e El ec. C orp. , 66 F. 3d 604, 609 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . W i t houtci t i ng anyauthor i t y , Fi s herar gues t hatt he courterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora mi s t r i al fol l ow i ng hi s r epea t ed outbur s t s and hi s eventual r emoval fr om t he court r oom . T he courts peci fi cal l yi ns t ruct ed the j ur yt o di s r egar d Fi s her ’ s behavi or and hi s t empora r yabs ence fr om t he court r oom and di d notexce ed the perm i s s i bl e bounds o f d is c re tio n b yre f

u s in g to g ra n t a m is tr ia l. V I. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng t hata pr os ecut orw as notvouchi ng dur i ng reb u tt al fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . U n it ed S tat es v . N elso n , 2 8 4 F . 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 6 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2002) . Fi s hercont ends t hat , i n r ebut t al , t he pr os ecut ori m pr oper l yvouched f ort he cre d ibil ityo f g o v ern m en t w itn ess T erril l B ail eyan d im p rop erlyinf lam ed the ju ry . In acc or dance w i t h t he rul e aga i ns tvouchi ng, t he pr os ecut ordi d notgi ve the j ur yany per s onal as s ur ance of B ai l ey ’ s cr edi bi l i t y . See U ni t ed St at es v. Saada, 212 F. 3d 210, 2256

( 3d C i r . 2000) ( s t at i ng t hatvouchi ng occur s i f t he pr os ecut oras s ur es t he j ur yt hatt he t es t i m onyof a w i t nes s i s cr edi bl e bas ed on i nfor m at i on noti n evi dence ) . H er e, t he pr os ecut oronl yaddr es s ed the fa ct s i n t he r ecor d. A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not e x c e e d th e p e rm is s ib le b o u n d s o f d is c re tio n .

V II . Fi s he rc ha l l e ng e s hi s s e nt e nc e un de rU ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. - - , 12 5 S. C t . 73 8 (200 5). H aving de t erm i ned t hat the tw o sentenci ng i ssues r ai sed here are best det er m i ned byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooke 

### r. * * * * * 

### We have considere d allthe argum ents advanced by the parti es and con clud e that n o f urth er d iscu ssio nis n ecessary . The judgm e nt

of the di s tri c t

c ourt r e l at i ng t o Fi s he r ’ s c onvi c t i on wi l lbe a ffi rm e d, we willvacatethe s ente nce andre m and f or re -s ente ncing in acc ordance with B oo ker.7O: \

NO T_PRECE DENT IAL\2003\032905np.w pd