2008 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 5-19-2008 

# U SA v . B e nson 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 . 06-5105

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_2008

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 2008 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 . Be n s on " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1212. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/12121 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. 06- 5105

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S T E P HE N B E NS ON, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00493) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody

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

on M ar ch 25, 2008 B efore: M cK E E , R E N D E L L , and T A S H IM A , * C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed M ay19, 2008 )

__________________ * H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 __________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s appea l ar i s es outof t he convi ct i on of St even Benson f ora s er i es of off

ens es bas ed upon a bot ched r obberyatU go’ s M ar keti n Phi l adel phi a. T he w i t nes s es t o t he cr i m e i ncl uded: A nn G i acomucci , t he managerof the s t or e; M i chel e ( “M i ke”) G es ual do, an el der l ypatr on w ho fr equent ed the s t or e; and O ffi cerA nt honyJ ones , t he off i cerw ho arr i ved dur i ng t he r obbery . O ffi cerC hr i s t opherE gan arr i ved s oon t her eaf t erand found th e g u n le f

t o n a s h e lf

in th e s to re . W hen O ffi cerJ ones arr i ved, t he r obberw as s t i l l i n t he s t or e and tr i ed t o run out w hen O ffi cerJ ones or der ed hi m t o s t op. T he r obbert hen r an bac k i nt o t he s t or e and di s appea r ed fora fe w s econds befor e r eappe ar i ng and tr y i ng t o w al k aw ay . A tt he pr el i m i naryhear i ng, bot h O ffi cerJ ones and M s . G i acomucci w er e abl e t o i dent i fyB ens on b u t M r. G e su a ld o w a s n o t. B ens on w as convi ct ed bya j ur yof i nt er fer ence w i t h i nt er s t at e comm er ce by r obbery , pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a c r i m e of vi ol ence , and pos s es s i on of a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n . B e n so n f

iled a m o tio n f

o r n e w trial, se tti n g f

o rth es s ent i al l yt he s ame t hr ee a r gum ent s t hathe pr es ent s on appea l . T hes e ar e: ( 1) t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byr efus i ng t o appoi ntnew couns el forB ens on on t he3

dayof t r i al ; ( 2) t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve i n t hathe fa i l ed t o s ubpoena M r. G esu aldo to testi fy ; and (3) tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in g iving a su p p lem en tal jury i n s t ru c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e e l e m e n to f t h e f e d e r a l r o b b e r yo f

f e n s e . We f i n d a l l t h r e e a r g u me n t s u n a v a i l i n g a n d wi l l a f f i r m. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d e a c h o f th e se a rg u m e n ts in tu rn in c o n n e c tio n w ith B ens on’ s m ot i on fornew t r i al . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnotonl yhel d a hea r i ng butw r ot e a 30- page c om pr ehens i ve opi ni on addr es s i ng eac h as pectof ea ch ar gum ent . W e nee d not r es t at e her e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s t hought ful , per s uas i ve ana l y s i s , butw i l l not e onl yt he key el em ents t hat com pel us t o aff i rm as t o each of ap pell ant’ s cl ai m s. W i t h r es pectt o appel l ant ’ s fi r s tar gum ent , namel y , B ens on’ s r eques t , on t he dayof t r i al , forappoi nt m entof new couns el , w e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad al r eady appoi nt ed new couns el once be for e, bas ed upon the s ame cont ent i on m ade byhi m on t he d a yo f trial, i . e. , a “br eakdow n i n comm uni cat i on. ” W hen B ens on m ade thi s ar gum ent w ith re sp e c t to trial c o u n se l o n th e d a yo f trial, th e D istric t C o u rt in q u ire d a s to e x a c tly t he natur e of the comm uni cat i on br eakdow n. C ouns el i ndi cat ed thathe and Benson ha d d isc u ss e d th e c a se a n d th e d o c u m e n ts, a n d th e ju d g e th e n o f f e re d m o re tim e f

o r th e m to pr epar e fort r i al t hataft ernoon. N otonl ydi d B ens on notr enew hi s obj ect i on, buthe i ndi cat ed tw i ce on the r ecor d t hatt hi s pr opos al w as “fa i renough. ” A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatdeni al of s ubs t i tut i on of couns el and of c ont i nuance of tr i alW e nee d notr epea tal l of t he ca s e l aw s uppor t i ng t he D i s t r i ctJ udge’ s rul i ng, as s he 1 i ncl uded ampl e author i t yi n heropi ni on. 4 u n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s w a s n o t m e re lyw ith in th e C o u rt’s d isc re tio n , b u t w e ll w ith in i t s di s cr et i on. 1 W i t h r es pectt o appel l ant ’ s s econd a r gum ent , t hatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o s ubpoena M r . G es ual do cons t i tut ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , t he D i s t r i ctC our tanal y zed th is a rg u m e n t in a th o ro u g h , tho u g h tf u l w a y . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t it m at t er ed l i t t l e w hetherornoti tw as r eas onabl e forcouns el t o have be l i eved thatt he governm entw oul d s ubpoena M r . G es ual do, and w hetherornoti tw as r eas onabl e that c o u n se l w a s s o m e w h a t co n f u se d a s to th e v a rio u s Ita lian w itn e ss e s, b e c a u se th e re c lea rly w as no pr ej udi ce, i n t hatcouns el coul d nothave s ecur ed M r . G es ual do’ s at t endanc e at t r i al . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad or der ed both couns el , befor e the tr i al , t o t r yt o s ubpoena M r. G esu aldo , b u t def

en se c o u n sel h ad learn ed that M r. G esu aldo h ad su ff ere d a h ea rt at t ack a nd w as i n t he hos pi t al . ( H e di ed abouta mont h aft ert r i al . ) A ccor di ngl y , any inef fe cti v en ess, i f in d ee d itw as in ef fe cti v en ess, did n o t r esu ltin p rejud ice. Fu rth er, M r . G es ual do’ s t es t i m onyfr om t he pr el i m i naryhear i ng w as r ead i nt o t he r ecor d att r i al and may , i n fac t , have be en s t r ongert es t i m onyt han i f he ha d been pr es entatt r i al and a p p e a re d f

ra il. B e n so n ’s in e f

f e c tiv e n e ss c laim m u st th e re f o re f a il.5

T he thi r d ar gum entr ai s ed byB ens on, t hatt he s uppl ement al j ur yi ns t ruct i on r egar di ng t he r equi s i t e ef fec ton i nt er s t at e comm er ce w as i m pr oper , w as s i m i l ar l yr ej ect ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad gi ven an i ni t i al i ns t ruct i on t hathad bee n agr eed upon bybot h s i des . T her eaf t ert he j ur yi nqui r ed as t o a pos s i bl e i ncons i s t ency betw een c er t ai n w or ds i n t he i ns t ruct i on, and the governm entpr opos ed thatt he D i s t r i ct C our tgi ve a s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i on t hatw e r efe r r ed t o appr ovi ngl yi n U ni t ed Stat es v. H ayw ood , 363 F. 3d 200, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O verdefe ns e couns el ’ s obj ect i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgave thats uppl ement al i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch expa nded upon the conc eptof t he ef fec ton i nt er s t at e comm er ce bynot i ng t hatt he ef fec tcoul d be “s l i ght , s ubt l e oreven p o ten tial.” W h ile it is a rg u a b le th a t th is in stru c tio n se t f o rth a b ro a d e r c o n c e p t o f “ e f f e c t” t han had the pr evi ous i ns t ruct i on, t hi s s t at ement of the l aw w as corr ect . W hi l e B ens on co n tend s tha t th is i n stru cti o n intr o d u ce d a n ew theo ryo f li ab il ity , w e d isag ree . R athe r, t he i ns t ruct i on cons t i tut ed a c onceptual var i at i on, evers o s l i ght , fr om t he i ns t ruct i on pr evi ous l ygi ven, and w as cl ar i fy i ng i n i t s cont ent . B eca us e i tr epr es ent ed a c or r ect instruction u n d er the law , w e w o u ld h av e d ifficu ltyin o v erturn ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s r es or tt o t hi s i ns t ruct i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l A FFIRM t he J udgm entand C onvi ct i on O r derof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt.