Source: http://openjurist.org/994/f2d/1510
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 18:47:02
Document Index: 608258570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 843', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3742', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3']

994 F2d 1510 United States v. Jc Chatman | OpenJurist
994 F. 2d 1510 - United States v. Jc Chatman	Home994 f2d 1510 united states v. jc chatman
994 F2d 1510 United States v. Jc Chatman 994 F.2d 1510
38 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 825
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.J.C. CHATMAN, true name Jon Chatman, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 91-6335, 92-6129.
J.C. Chatman appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of, cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and using a telephone to facilitate the conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Mr. Chatman was indicted along with six other people for participating in a conspiracy to traffic cocaine from Los Angeles to Oklahoma City. He was arrested in Oklahoma on February 19, 1991. The cases against Chatman and four codefendants were consolidated for trial and Chatman was sentenced to life imprisonment and five years supervised release.
Mr. Chatman contends that the district court erred in failing to grant him a separate trial because the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), the Court held that "the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession with a proper limiting instruction when, as here, the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant's name but any reference to his or her existence." Id. at 211, 107 S.Ct. at 1709; see also United States v. Markopoulos, 848 F.2d 1036, 1038-39 (10th Cir.1988).
Chatman appeals an order denying his motion to suppress cocaine base seized during a warrantless search of the trunk of his rental car. The car, a white Mercury Cougar, was parked in the parking lot of the apartment building where Chatman was arrested. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that there was probable cause for the search and held that the search fell under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment bar against warrantless searches. We review the district court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's findings. United States v. Ibarra, 955 F.2d 1405, 1409 (10th Cir.1992). The determination regarding the reasonableness of the search is a question of law which we review de novo. Id.
Under the automobile exception, a warrantless search is permissible if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 2069, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985); United States v. Crabb, 952 F.2d 1245, 1246 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1981, 118 L.Ed.2d 579 (1992). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle.
Appellant argues that, because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction on all counts, the district court erred in failing to grant his motion for acquittal. To review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Grimes, 967 F.2d 1468, 1472 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 355, 121 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992).
The appellant's arguments are unavailing. The testimony was corroborated in part by a tape-recorded conversation in which the government's confidential informant negotiated to purchase cocaine from Mr. Chatman, by a police officer's testimony about the surveillance and arrest, and by a search warrant. Moreover, a conviction based on accomplice testimony may be affirmed if the district court properly instructed the jury that accomplice testimony must be carefully scrutinized, weighed with great care, and received with caution. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 512-13 (10th Cir.1984). Here, the district court instructed the jury that "the testimony of an accomplice alone, if believed by the jury, may be of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict of guilty, even though not corroborated or supported by other evidence. However, the jury should keep in mind that such testimony is always to be received with caution and weighed with great care." We find that the jury was properly instructed.
Second, Chatman contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conspiracy conviction because there is no record evidence that he agreed with anyone to distribute cocaine or that he benefitted from the alleged conspiracy. To establish a conspiracy, the government must show that two or more persons agreed to violate the law, the defendant knew of the essential objectives of the conspiracy, and the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. United States v. Sasser, 971 F.2d 470, 477 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1292, 122 L.Ed.2d 683 (1993). While an agreement need not be explicit and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence must show that the coconspirators' conduct was in some way interdependent. See United States v. Fox, 902 F.2d 1508, 1514 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 874, 111 S.Ct. 199, 112 L.Ed.2d 161 (1990). Interdependence is shown if the defendant's conduct facilitated the endeavors of other coconspirators or the venture as a whole. United States v. Horn, 946 F.2d 738, 740-41 (10th Cir.1991). One does not become a participant in a conspiracy merely by associating with conspirators known to be involved in crime. See United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 669 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1288, 122 L.Ed.2d 680 (1993).
The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and we review only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562, 571 (10th Cir.1992). We accord heightened deference to a trial court's ruling on a hearsay question. Id.
Exhibit 25 and the testimony regarding Exhibits 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 were properly admitted because they are not hearsay. An out-of-court statement is hearsay only if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. United States v. Peveto, 881 F.2d 844, 853 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 943, 110 S.Ct. 348, 107 L.Ed.2d 336 (1989); Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Exhibit 25 was entered through the testimony of a police officer who found the exhibit documents during searches of Codefendant Vickie Hogg's property. The same officer testified about the excluded exhibits. The officer identified Exhibit 25 as an American Express receipt. He was asked what information appeared on the receipt and testified: "The credit card number, it shows a name of Jay Chatman with the card being valid from 6 of '90 through 6 of '92. And looks like Kids Foot Locker in Culver City, California." For each of the other exhibits, his testimony was limited to whether he had found a document with a certain address on it during the search.2
Chatman contends that the district court erred in determining the amount of cocaine used to compute his base offense level and in enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice, possessing a weapon, and for his role in the offense. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its interpretation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") de novo. United States v. Pinedo-Montoya, 966 F.2d 591, 595 (10th Cir.1992). The application of the Guidelines to the facts is entitled to due deference. United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 1560 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 829, 111 S.Ct. 88, 112 L.Ed.2d 60 (1990).
First, Chatman challenges the amount of cocaine the district court used to compute his base offense level, arguing that the amount was ultimately based on trial testimony that lacked credibility and specificity. The government must prove the drug amount by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Cook, 949 F.2d 289, 295 (10th Cir.1991). Following an evidentiary hearing, where the district court heard testimony from a Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent and the probation officer who prepared the presentence report, the district court determined that an amount in excess of fifteen kilograms of cocaine base was attributable to Chatman. The judge stated that, while the exact amount was uncertain and could have ranged from twenty-four to fifty-one kilograms, the evidence strongly supported a finding in excess of fifteen kilograms, which supports a base offense level calculation of 42 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1(c)(1) (Nov. 1992). We conclude that this finding was not clearly erroneous. Even if there were discrepancies as to the total amount attributable to Chatman, the testimony of several witness supports a finding that it exceeded fifteen kilograms. We give due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses on whose testimony it relied. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); Cook, 949 F.2d at 296.
Chatman does not deny flushing something down the toilet, but asserts that there is insufficient evidence to prove that it was cocaine base because the flushed items were never retrieved. He further claims that the evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable inference that it was cocaine base. We review the district court's determination that the appellant obstructed justice for clear error. United States v. Hernandez, 967 F.2d 456, 458 (10th Cir.1992). The district court relied on an arresting officers testimony that on entering the apartment to execute the search warrant, he went to the bathroom where he saw Mr. Chatman holding three packages similar to the ones containing cocaine base that the confidential informant had bought from Chatman two days earlier. The officer saw Chatman drop them into the toilet and ordered him to stop, raise his hands, and move away from the toilet. Chatman proceeded to flush the toilet and turned around and grinned at the officer who then ordered him to lay on the floor. The officer testified that he then seized 1.5 grams of cocaine base found on the bathroom vanity top next to the toilet. We conclude that the evidence supports at least an inference that the flushed items were cocaine base and that the district court's upward adjustment was not clearly erroneous.
Appellant next contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level increase for possessing a firearm during the commission of the offense. The police found a .357 magnum handgun in a bedroom dresser in the apartment where Chatman negotiated a sale with the government's confidential informant and was arrested. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) prescribes a two-level increase in the base offense level for drug trafficking offenses "[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed." The commentary to § 2D1.1 states that "[t]he adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n. 3).
Chatman does not dispute that the gun was present, but argues that possession under § 2D1.1(b)(1) requires a showing that the gun was on his person or within his immediate reach and that he knew the gun was there. He asserts that, absent this showing, nothing links him to the weapon. Our prior rulings construing § 2D1.1(b)(1) and its commentary do not support this interpretation. We have held that possession under § 2D1.1(b)(1) does not require a finding of scienter, see United States v. Underwood, 938 F.2d 1086, 1090 (10th Cir.1991), and that the trial judge may "enhance a drug defendant's sentence for mere possession of a dangerous weapon even if there is no evidence other than proximity to suggest the gun was connected to the offense." United States v. Roberts, 980 F.2d 645, 647 (10th Cir.1992) (guns seized from kitchen and master bedroom were in adequate proximity). We conclude that the government has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun was proximate to the offense, and that Chatman has presented no evidence that it is "clearly improbable" that the gun was connected to the offense. See id. at 647-48. We therefore affirm the district court's two-level increase.
Finally, Chatman claims that the district court erroneously imposed a two-level increase for his role in the conspiracy because the supporting testimony lacked credibility. Section 3B1.1(c) provides that "[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The appellant's role in the offense is a question of fact that we review for clear error. Hernandez, 967 F.2d at 458. The district court heard testimony at both the trial and the sentencing hearing identifying at least four people who distributed cocaine for Mr. Chatman or whose activity was otherwise overseen by Chatman. Giving due regard to the district court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, we affirm the two-level increase.
VI. NEW TRIAL
Mr. Chatman appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Chatman based the motion on two affidavits in which one of the government's chief witnesses, Raymond Johnson, recanted his trial and Grand Jury testimony. We review the denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Page, 828 F.2d 1476, 1478 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 989, 108 S.Ct. 510, 98 L.Ed.2d 508 (1987).
A motion for a new trial is not viewed with favor and should be granted with great caution. United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1438, 1443 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 220, 121 L.Ed.2d 158 (1992). It is well established that newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial only if the defendant shows that:
United States v. Stevens, 978 F.2d 565, 570 (10th Cir.1992). Where, as here, the new evidence is a recantation of trial testimony, "the trial court must first be satisfied that the challenged testimony was actually false." United States v. Bradshaw, 787 F.2d 1385, 1391 (10th Cir.1986).
To make this determination, the trial court ordinarily must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility and effect of the recantation. Page, 828 F.2d at 1478. The determination of a witness's credibility is a matter for the trial court rather than the appellate court, and we must be able to "discern from the record whether or how the trial judge evaluated the credibility of [a witness's] recantation." United States v. Ramsey, 726 F.2d 601, 605 (10th Cir.1984) (Ramsey I). In Ramsey I, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without making any findings of fact. Id. at 604. It was only after we remanded the case to the district court to make the necessary findings that we affirmed its denial of the motion. United States v. Ramsey, 761 F.2d 603, 604 (10th Cir.1985) (Ramsey II), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1082, 106 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed.2d 892 (1986). On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the witness repudiated his recanting affidavit and testified that his trial testimony was true. Id.
He was asked: "[D]id you find two receipts that showed the address of 3137 West 139th Street, Hawthorne, California?"; "[D]id you find a money order customer copy with a person's name and address 500 Southwest 93rd Street?"; "Did you find two deeds in that apartment, or in that location? ... [w]ere the addresses 151 East 99th Street in Los Angeles and 1458 Gladwick in Carson, California?"; and "[D]id you find an Alamo Rent-A-Car receipt signed by Pamela Banes Chatman, giving the address of 704 East Imperial Highway, Los Angeles, California?"
Home994 f2d 1510 united states v. jc chatman