Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1097988.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:38:33+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES of America, v. Roberta Ronique BELL, Appellant.
Before GREENBERG, ALITO, and SEITZ, Circuit Judges. Richard K. Renn (argued), Snyder & Renn, York, PA, for Appellant. David M. Barasch, United States Attorney, Gordon A.D. Zubrod (argued), Assistant U.S. Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.
Appellant Roberta Ronique Bell was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; murder of a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A) and (C); use of physical force and threats against a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), (2), and (3); and use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). She was sentenced to life imprisonment. These charges all relate to the killing of Doreen Proctor, who had been acting as an informant for the Tri-County Drug Task Force. Before Bell was indicted on these federal charges in June 1995, she had been acquitted in the Court of Common Pleas for Adams County of murder and witness intimidation charges arising out of the same events.
Bell's principal argument in this appeal is that her convictions on the witness tampering charges must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that she intended to interfere with a federal proceeding or to prevent the communication of information to federal law enforcement officers. We hold that the jury was entitled to conclude (1) that Bell intended to prevent communications by Proctor to law enforcement officers and (2) that under United States v. Stansfield, 101 F.3d 909 (3d Cir.1996), at least one of those communications would have been to a federal officer. Accordingly, we affirm.
Doreen Proctor was an informant for the Tri-County Drug Task Force (“the Task Force”), which was comprised of local, state, and federal investigators operating in Cumberland, Dauphin, and Franklin Counties in Pennsylvania. The Task Force had developed federal as well as state criminal cases. Based on an investigation by the Task Force in which Proctor had provided information, David Tyler (who was Bell's boyfriend and colleague in the drug business) was on trial for drug offenses in state court. Proctor was scheduled to testify against Tyler on April 21, 1992, in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County. In the early morning of April 21, at the direction of David Tyler, Bell and several others kidnapped Proctor, took her to an isolated location in Adams County, tortured her, and killed her. Bell drove Proctor to the place where she was killed, and fired the first shot, into Proctor's chest. Willie Tyler, David Tyler's brother, then shot Proctor in the head.
On appeal, Bell raises these same contentions. In evaluating Bell's sufficiency challenge, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government (the verdict-winner) and ask “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711, 731 (3d Cir.1994). Since the remainder of Bell's contentions pose questions of law, our review as to them is plenary.
Subsection (a)(1) of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (“Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant”) makes it unlawful to kill or attempt to kill another person “with intent to- (A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding; [or] (C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense․” Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 prohibits the knowing use of intimidation, physical force, threats, and corrupt persuasion to accomplish these ends.
A. In the district court's view, the government was required to prove only that “the Defendant intended to interfere with a proceeding (that happened to be a federal proceeding) or interfere with communication to a law enforcement officer (who happened to be a federal law enforcement officer).” Dist.Ct.Op. at 7. If the government had presented evidence that it was contemplated that Proctor would testify in a federal proceeding, the jury could easily have inferred that at least one of the proceedings with which Bell intended to interfere would have been federal. But there was no federal proceeding contemplated at the time of Proctor's murder.2 Similarly, if the government had presented evidence that at the time of her murder Proctor was cooperating in an ongoing federal investigation, the jury could easily have inferred that at least one of the law-enforcement-officer communications that Bell intended to prevent would have been with a federal officer. But, while federal officers were involved in the Task Force investigation, there is no evidence that Proctor had been providing information to a federal officer or to an officer authorized to act on behalf of the federal government.
Accordingly, in this case, as in United States v. Stansfield, 101 F.3d 909 (3d Cir.1996), we must rely on circumstantial evidence to decide whether the jury could have concluded that at least one of the law-enforcement-officer communications that Bell intended to prevent would have been with a federal officer. In Stansfield, the defendant believed that one Hoffman had told the authorities that Stansfield had burned down his (Stansfield's) house to collect the insurance money. Stansfield threatened, beat up, and attempted to kill Hoffman and Hoffman's parents. On appeal, Stansfield argued that his conviction for witness tampering could not stand because there was insufficient evidence that he had intended to hinder Hoffman's communications with a federal law enforcement officer. Id. at 917.
[T]he government must prove: (1) the defendant killed or attempted to kill a person; (2) the defendant was motivated by a desire to prevent the communication between any person and law enforcement authorities concerning the commission or possible commission of an offense; (3) that offense was actually a federal offense; and (4) the defendant believed that the person in (2) above might communicate with the federal authorities.
Our interpretation is buttressed by the Stansfield court's explanation that “[t]his last element may be inferred by the jury from the fact that the offense was federal in nature, plus additional appropriate evidence.” Id. If an offense constitutes a federal crime, it is more likely that an officer investigating it would be a federal officer, but an offense's status as a federal crime has no relationship with the defendant's subjective belief about the individual investigating it. Our reading of Stansfield is further confirmed by an examination of the dissent in that case. The dissent would have ordered the entry of a judgment of acquittal because the evidence revealed “no way to conclude that Stansfield either believed that a federal investigation was underway or could possibly have been aware of the potential for a federal investigation.” Id. at 924 (Lewis, J., dissenting). The dissent thus clearly framed the issue as whether the defendant must know or intend that the law-enforcement-officer communications which he seeks to prevent would be with federal officers. Because of the majority's conclusion that such federal-specific knowledge or intent was not required, the dissent charged that the majority had “essentially eviscerate[d] the intent element of the statute.” Id. at 923 (Lewis, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, we believe that the law of this circuit after Stansfield is that the government must prove that at least one of the law-enforcement-officer communications which the defendant sought to prevent would have been with a federal officer, but that the government is not obligated to prove that the defendant knew or intended anything with respect to this federal involvement. As Stansfield explained, the government may carry this burden by showing that the conduct which the defendant believed would be discussed in these communications constitutes a federal offense, so long as the government also presents “additional appropriate evidence.” Id. at 918.
B. The questions upon which the disposition of this appeal turns, then, are: (1) whether the jury could have concluded that at least part of Bell's motivation in killing Proctor was to prevent Proctor from communicating further with the Task Force; and (2) if so, whether the jury could have concluded that at least one of Proctor's further communications with the Task Force would have been with a federal officer.
We also believe that the second question requires an affirmative answer. The government clearly presented sufficient evidence to entitle the jury to conclude that Bell killed Proctor; we have held that the jury could have found that Bell was motivated at least in part by a desire to prevent Proctor from communicating with the Task Force concerning the commission or possible commission of offenses; and those offenses (drug crimes) are clearly federal offenses. See Stansfield, 101 F.3d at 918. Bell, like Stansfield, “had knowledge of [Proctor's] past cooperation and was aware that some investigation, though not necessarily a federal one, was underway.” Id. at 919. The Stansfield court noted that it was unclear whether Stansfield knew that a federal investigation had been opened. Id. Similarly, it is unclear whether Bell knew that the Task Force was a joint federal-state effort, but it is clear that it in fact was. As in Stansfield, the evidence does not indicate that Bell intended to prevent Proctor from communicating with a particular officer or officers, but rather with the Task Force generally.
[Y]ou would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to frustrate a future judicial proceeding. You would also have to conclude that that proceeding would be a federal proceeding, but you don't have to find that the defendant knew that it would be a federal proceeding.
(App.586). Bell argues that this charge “watered down” the intent requirement by “shift[ing] the jury's focus to deciding whether it was possible that the victim could relay information to federal law enforcement, rather than to the proper inquiry-the intent of the Defendant․” Bell Br. at 29 (emphasis in original).
This argument is meritless. The quoted instruction did nothing more than explain 18 U.S.C. § 1512(f)(1) and (2)'s express provision that the government need not prove any state of mind on the part of the defendant with respect to the federal character of the proceeding or law-enforcement-officer communication that it alleges she intended to interfere with or prevent.
In sentencing Bell to life imprisonment, the district court followed the pre-sentence report's recommendation and applied U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1(a), the guideline for first-degree murder. Bell contends that since the jury did not find that her killing of Proctor constituted first-degree murder, it was error for the district court to sentence her based on the first-degree murder guideline rather than the second-degree guideline.
The provision under which Bell was sentenced, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)(A), incorporates 18 U.S.C. § 1111's definition of murder, and provides that a conviction for tampering-by-killing shall be punished by death or life imprisonment if the killing constitutes murder under § 1111, and shall be punished in accordance with § 1112 (the manslaughter statute) if it is any other kind of killing. Here the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Bell's conduct fit the definition of first-degree murder set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). (App.21A-30A) Bell argues that it was a violation of due process for the district court, as opposed to the jury, to make this determination.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the district court.
1. Willie Tyler is the only co-conspirator of Bell's to have been similarly prosecuted in federal court after the state prosecution. He was acquitted of murder and convicted of witness intimidation in the state trial, and served two years in prison. He was then convicted of the same offenses as Bell following a trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (No. 1:CR-96-106).
2. The government contends that “federal proceedings were, in fact, contemplated as the result of the victim's discussions with Special Agent Diller. (App.Vol. 2, pp. 45, 46).” Govt.Br. at 23. Diller's testimony does not bear this characterization. He did not say anything that can be construed to mean that the Task Force had already decided at the time of Proctor's murder to make a federal case out of the drug trade in which Tyler, Bell, and others were engaged, or that it had even thought about doing so.
3. We do not mean to imply that the victim and the witness or informant- the person murdered and the person whom the murderer intended to prevent from communicating with the authorities-must be one and the same. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) seems to apply as well to a situation where the defendant kills one person at least in part to set an intimidating example to dissuade another person or persons from communicating to the authorities. See id. (“Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to ․ prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer ․”) (emphases added).
4. Beyond stating our conclusion that the additional evidence presented in this case (in particular, that the Task Force was a joint federal-state effort that had developed federal cases in the past) constitutes “additional appropriate evidence” of the sort mandated by Stansfield, 101 F.3d at 918, we express no opinion as to what types and what quantum of evidence satisfy that standard, which by its nature will require careful, case-by-case analysis.
5. Bell's argument that the federal government lacks jurisdiction to try her for these crimes is founded upon her contention that the evidence reveals no nexus between her charged conduct and any federal interest. In light of our conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Bell's convictions for tampering with a federal informant, we reject her jurisdictional argument. Similarly, Bell's sufficiency argument as to the conspiracy and gun charges depends upon the success of her sufficiency challenge to the tampering counts. We therefore find this argument as well to be meritless.
6. Bell also reiterates the double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and selective prosecution arguments that were rejected by the district court. The dual sovereigns doctrine has long foreclosed Bell's argument that the federal government may not prosecute her for the same conduct of which she was acquitted in state court, and Bell fails in her attempt to fit this case into the “Bartkus exception” to that doctrine. See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). The same defect-no identity of parties-dooms Bell's collateral estoppel argument. Finally, Bell's selective prosecution argument is frivolous. No such claim lies unless Bell can make out a difficult prima facie showing that she was selected for prosecution for an invidious reason such as her race, her religion, or her exercise of constitutional rights. See, e.g., Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547,608 (1985). The only motive so much as hinted at here-that the federal government chose to prosecute Bell after her state court acquittal because it did not want her to get away with murder-is far from invidious.

References: v. 
 § 371
 § 1512
 § 1512
 § 924
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1512
 § 1512
 v. 
 § 1512
 § 2
 § 1512
 § 1111
 § 1111
 § 1112
 § 1111
 § 1512
 v. 
 v.