Source: http://openjurist.org/102/f3d/1245
Timestamp: 2015-08-30 13:59:25
Document Index: 707881383

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1956', '§ 1861', '§ 1867', '§ 1867', '§ 1866', '§ 1866', '§ 1866', '§ 1866', '§ 1866', '§ 1866', '§ 1866', '§ 1869', '§ 1866', '§ 1866']

102 F3d 1245 United States v. Spriggs III | OpenJurist
102 F. 3d 1245 - United States v. Spriggs III Home
102 F3d 1245 United States v. Spriggs III 102 F.3d 1245
322 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 46 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 181
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Joseph SPRIGGS, III, Appellant.
Nos. 94-3067, 94-3097, 94-3111 and 94-3114.
Argued Sept. 17, 1996.Decided Dec. 17, 1996.As Amended Feb. 20, 1997.Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1997.
[322 U.S.App.D.C. 220] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 93cr00012-02) (No. 93cr00012-03) (No. 93cr00012-04) (No. 93cr00012-10).
A.J. Kramer, Lisa B. Wright, Philip T. Inglima, Bruce A. Baird, Michele J. Woods, Jonathan Shapiro, Washington, DC and Michael W. Lieberman, Alexandria, VA, were on the joint brief for all appellants.
Michele J. Woods, appointed by the court, argued the cause, Washington, DC, for appellant Joseph Spriggs, III. Bruce A. Baird, [322 U.S.App.D.C. 221] appointed by the court, was with her on the individual briefs. Carol E. Bruce and Lanny A. Breuer entered appearances.
Lisa B. Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued the cause, Washington, DC, for appellant Gregory Luis deMesones. A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, was with her on the individual briefs. Neil H. Jaffee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, entered an appearance.
Philip T. Inglima argued the cause and filed the individual briefs, Washington, DC, for appellant John E. Adamson. Plato Cacheris entered an appearance.
Jonathan Shapiro argued the cause, Alexandria, VA, for appellant Paul P. Smyth. Michael W. Lieberman was with him on the individual briefs.
Barbara J. Valliere, Assistant United States Attorney, argued the cause, Washington, DC, for appellee. Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, John R. Fisher, Katherine Winfree, Virginia Cheatham, and Christine E. Sykes, Assistant United States Attorneys, were with her on the brief. Elizabeth Trosman entered an appearance.
Before: WILLIAMS, KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
The four appellants, all salesmen at well-known Washington-area suburban car dealerships, were caught in an elaborate sting operation in which an undercover police officer posed as a big-time District of Columbia drug dealer seeking to buy cars with the cash proceeds of cocaine sales.
The undercover officer, D.C. Police Detective Larry Best, worked under the operational name "Rob" and was part of a FBI/IRS/Metropolitan Police Department task force aimed at uncovering the laundering at suburban car dealerships of drug money generated in the District of Columbia. See Tr. 11/1/93 at 55, 58. Best could not have been clearer about who he was and what he desired. For example, at his first meeting with appellant deMesones he told him that he worked strictly in cash and that he sold cocaine for a living. See Tr. 11/9/93 at 40. Best also provided deMesones fake District of Columbia drivers' licenses to be used in the required paperwork because, he explained to deMesones, he did not want to use his own name. See id. at 41.
The sting followed the same basic pattern through the more than two years of its operation. See Tr. 11/1/93 at 60-62. First there was introductory talk in which Best told the targeted salesman that he wanted to buy cars for cash and that the source of his funds was drug sales. Cooperation followed as the salesman knowingly filled out paperwork with fake D.C. drivers' licenses provided by Best, counted cash in small bills, or drove Best or his undercover partner to pick up bags of cash. All the appellants, except Adamson, accepted substantial cash tips from the ersatz drug dealer, on top of the cash paid to the dealerships. Altogether, the undercover agent completed nine deals to purchase automobiles, including one not charged in the superseding indictment, and spent several weeks setting up a grand finale in which he made five more deals, never consummated, to purchase more than a million dollars' worth of cars that were to be shipped to his supposed drug connection in Colombia.
Best's main contact was appellant Smyth, who arranged contacts with willing salesmen and, just before his arrest, received a $5000 tip from Best for his services helping to put in motion the final deals for cars to be shipped to the supposed drug connection. See Tr. 1/6/94 at 22. As with many of the pertinent conversations, the cash delivery was recorded and the transcript and tape were offered in evidence. See, e.g., Gov. Ex. 14, Tr. 2 at 6.
Appellant deMesones played an important role in three early deals. Not only did the transcripts demonstrate the appellant's awareness of the supposed origins of Best's [322 U.S.App.D.C. 222] money, they also caught deMesones seeking payment for structuring the cash deal:
deMesones: Billy ... Billy ask you for a..ahh, one percent counting fee? ...
Best: He can get it. What you need ... what you need? ...
deMesones: We could do a gee-wiz divided by 3....
Best: Give me a figure....
deMesones: One thousand, a G-wiz divided by three ... 300 a piece.
Gov. Ex. Two, Tr. 8 at 22.
Appellant Spriggs worked for deMesones. On three occasions, he drove to Washington, D.C. to pick up Best and the cash, and his taped conversations amply reflected his understanding that the money came from drug sales. See, e.g., Tr. 11/9/93 at 83-87; Gov. Ex. Two, Tr. 8 at 4. Appellant Adamson knowingly relied on fake identification to fill out paperwork in the cash deals for cars, see Tr. 12/21/93(B) at 78-80, and Best made clear to him the supposed illegal source of the cash. See Gov. Ex. 11, Tr. 3 at 6-7.
Two months after their arrests in January 1993, a grand jury indicted appellants, and numerous other business entities and individuals, on one count of conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, as well as numerous counts of money laundering and attempted money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3). Besides the many taped conversations, the evidence at the four-month trial included photographs of defendants' meetings with the agent, the falsely completed paperwork, and testimony by Best himself and cooperating defendants.
In February 1994 the jury convicted appellants of money laundering and attempted money laundering but acquitted them of the conspiracy charge. At sentencing Smyth, convicted of 13 of 15 counts, received 108 months in prison. deMesones, convicted of all three money laundering counts with which he was charged, received 57 months. Spriggs, convicted of two of three money laundering counts, received 41 months. Appellant Adamson, convicted of one attempted money laundering count and acquitted of money laundering and conspiracy, received 57 months.
This appeal followed. We consider both the joint and individual challenges of appellants in the order that they came up at trial, adding factual detail as needed.
I. Pre-Trial Issues
A. Manufactured Venue
Appellants acknowledge that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Chin, 981 F.2d 1275, 1278 (D.C.Cir.1992), the acts proven supplied an adequate basis for venue in the District of Columbia. But they claim that their convictions should be set aside because "most of the contacts that confer venue in this district were purposefully established," citing a statement in a brief filed before the district court acknowledging that fact. See Brief for Government at 62 (May 28, 1993) (D.D.C., Crim. No. 93-12). For example, agents "purposefully" arranged for defendants to pick-up cash in the District rather than at the suburban dealerships from which the cars were bought. Appellants argue that the Government's goal in arranging these contacts was improper as it was aimed at illegally "manufacturing venue" in the District.
It is unclear exactly what a claim of "manufactured venue" entails. Appellants at some points suggest that the issue is one of "venue entrapment," but then make no claim that they were not predisposed to engage in District-related contacts. As it is, we are uncertain whether there is such a thing as "venue entrapment." It is a little hard to conceive of a person predisposed to commit a federal crime---but not in some specific district. Cf. United States v. Al-Talib, 55 F.3d 923, 929 (4th Cir.1995) (rejecting concept of venue entrapment and observing that "if the predisposition to commit the [federal] crime exists, it hardly matters for entrapment purposes where the acts are carried out"). But see United States v. Toomey, 404 F.Supp. 1377 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (finding such a lack of predisposition). In any event, there being no suggestion that appellants had even the slightest tendency to balk at the District's [322 U.S.App.D.C. 223] edge, much less the necessary lack of predisposition, we need not resolve that dilemma.
What then is left? There is, of course, the possibility of "a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the Government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1643, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). We may assume without deciding that there would be a fatal impropriety where "the key events occur in one district, but the prosecution, preferring trial elsewhere, lures a defendant to a distant district for some minor event simply to establish venue." United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 847 n. 21 (2d Cir.1982). The concern over a distant district is critical, as "[t]he provision for trial in the vicinity of the crime is a safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place." United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 407, 78 S.Ct. 875, 877, 2 L.Ed.2d 873 (1958). But obviously there is nothing distant about the District vis-a-vis its Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
Nor was there anything reprehensible about the agent's deliberate choice to present himself as a drug dealer from the District. That is where the local drug trade is concentrated, just as the sellers of luxury cars so esteemed by drug dealers appear to be concentrated in the surrounding suburbs. The trial court was quite correct in characterizing the District contacts as "integral to the alleged conspiracy." Opinion of July 13, 1993 at 7. Cf. United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477, 481-82 (2d Cir.1985) (upholding venue in district where crime's effects are felt).
Appellants make a broad attack on the way the jury was selected, claiming violations of the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1869, and the Sixth and Fifth Amendments. We consider each in turn.
Jury Selection and Service Act: The Act prizes the two related goals of ensuring (1) that juries are selected "at random from a fair cross section of the community" and (2) that "disqualifications, exemptions, and excusals from jury service" are granted only for "objective reasons." See United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 909 (D.C.Cir.1990); see also H.R Rep. No. 90-1076 at 4 (1968); S.Rep. No. 90-891 at 15 (1967). We are to grant relief only for "substantial" violations of the Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a), i.e., those tending to impair the Act's two prime goals, see United States v. Barnette, 800 F.2d 1558, 1567 (11th Cir.1986).
We quickly pass over the Government's argument that appellants' claims were not timely made in the district court. It is undisputed that at least one of the appellants met the Act's strict time requirements, see 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a), so we must address the claims. Since the claims fail, however, it makes no difference whether the others made timely objections or are able to benefit from their fellow defendant's having done so. Compare United States v. Gatling, 96 F.3d 1511, 1521 (D.C.Cir.1996) (stating that absent an express judicial instruction an objection by one co-defendant is good for all if record of trial suggests that it was the approach "taken by the judge in practice"), with United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 510 (D.C.Cir.1996) (noting that a co-defendant can "free ride" on the objection of another only if trial judge makes it clear that such a practice will be followed).
Appellants' objections to the process are essentially twofold: first, that the jurors were in effect "volunteers," and second, that the court's hardship excusals were invalid because they failed to fit the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c)(1). Although the statute does not in terms bar a jury of volunteers, courts have held that such a jury fails to satisfy the Act's goals of random selection and of exclusion only on objective grounds. See United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 611 (5th Cir.1977). But see Coleman v. Risley, 839 F.2d 434, 449 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that prospective jurors randomly asked if they could serve at a particular time were not volunteers). We assume that a truly voluntary jury would violate the Act.
[322 U.S.App.D.C. 224] Anticipating a long trial, the trial court caused two groups of potential jurors, Groups "R" and "W," totaling about 300 people, to be given questionnaires asking if they could sit on a jury in a trial expected to last 10-12 weeks, and, if they could not, to give a "detailed explanation." See Defendant Thomas McGeady's Motion to Stay Proceedings at Exhibit 1 (Oct. 4, 1993). A hundred and one said they could. See Tr. 10/7/93(A) at 38. Initially, the trial court excused all of the others who had said they could not serve on such a long trial. See Tr. 10/7/93(A) at 11. After objections from appellants and co-defendants, the district reviewed the questionnaires in camera and ordered more than a score of the prospective jurors who had said they could not serve on such a long trial--those who had given inadequate excuses or none at all--to report for voir dire. See Opinion of October 13, 1993 at 4.
The most serious element of appellants' claim that the jurors were volunteers arises out of the jury service terms of the two groups, R and W, that constituted the pool of 300 with which the trial judge started. Counsel stated in a trial affidavit that (on the basis of information from the jury administrator) the R jurors "were the group that had been called for the first part of September," and the W jurors for the second part. See Affidavit of Lisa D. Burget at 2 (Oct. 4, 1993). As the trial was only scheduled to start in October, appellants in their brief characterize the jurors as "having fulfilled their term of service." Appellants' Joint Brief at 16. This indeed makes them sound like true volunteers.
But counsel's own affidavit belies the idea that they had finished their "terms of service." It goes on to report that the jurors excused from this trial were "immediately made available for assignment to panels on other cases anticipated to be of shorter duration." Burget Affidavit at 2-3. Thus we have no reason at all to believe that a single potential juror would have thought that, merely by begging off this trial, he would be free to resume his normal life. Indeed, as we noted in United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312, 321 n. 60, 322 & n. 65 (D.C.Cir.1974), the statute says that no person shall in any two year period be required to "attend court for prospective service as a petit juror for a total of more than thirty days, except when necessary to complete service in a particular case." 28 U.S.C. § 1866(e)(1) (emphasis added). Although the trial in Anderson was scheduled to begin within the month in which the jurors were called, it is not apparent why that should make a difference; there is no reason to believe that the obligation to complete service in a trial requires that the trial in question start within a period of 30 consecutive days--or that any juror thought so. Although the claim of a "volunteer" jury that we rejected in Anderson was based on the Sixth Amendment, not the statute, it is hard to see how that makes a difference, as the court assumed (as we do here) that a truly volunteer jury would be unlawful. Finally, the trial court's order to the persons who invoked inadequate excuses (or none) contradicts the notion that anyone involved in the process supposed service to be voluntary.
The appellants' second theory is that the court's hardship excusals could be lawful only if they fit within § 1866(c)(1)'s provision that "person[s] summoned for jury service may be ... excused by the court ... upon a showing of undue hardship or extreme inconvenience." That section goes on to say that jurors so excused shall either be "summoned again" for jury service or "reinserted into the qualified jury wheel." As we have already observed, counsel's affidavit says that instead the excused jurors were "immediately made available for assignment to panels on other cases anticipated to be of shorter duration." Burget Affidavit at 2-3.
Locating case-specific hardship excusals within the statutory scheme is not simple. The district court decision on the subject was (understandably) ambiguous. While the court invoked § 1866(c)(1) as the basis for the excusals, see Opinion of October 3, 1993 at 5, it also noted that because the jurors were not excused from their periods of jury service, but only from the particular trial, "they were not resummoned nor were their names reinserted into the jury wheel," id. at 3-4 n. 3, as that section seems to require.
[322 U.S.App.D.C. 225] Section 1866(c) appears to state an exclusive list of bases for excuse or disqualification. It says that, with certain exceptions not evidently applicable, "no person or class of persons shall be disqualified, excluded, excused or exempt from service as jurors: Provided, That any person summoned for jury service may be ...," and then proceeds to enumerate five exceptions. The first, (c)(1), appears to be directed at generic hardship excusals; at least the provision for resummons and reinsertion in the jury wheel seems to assume a generic excuse, as the natural consequence of a case-specific excuse would be simply (as it was here) return to the jury room for possible call to another case. It might be inviting to suppose that § 1866(c) refers only to such generic grounds for excuse, but the remaining subsections rule out such a construction. They include exclusion on a peremptory challenge, (c)(3), and "challenge by any party for good cause shown," (c)(4), events that it is hard to imagine outside the context of a specific trial. Subsections (c)(2) and (c)(5) may encompass both the generic and the case-specific. The first covers excusals because of inability to render impartial service or because the juror's service might be disruptive, and the second addresses jurors whose service might threaten the secrecy of the proceedings or otherwise affect the integrity of jury proceedings. The closing sentence of § 1866(c) says that jurors excused "from a particular jury under clause (2), (3) or (4) of this subsection shall be eligible to sit on another jury if the basis for his initial exclusion would not be relevant to his ability to serve on such other jury," evidently reflecting an assumption that those subsections included case-specific excusals. Thus § 1866(c) evidently establishes an exclusive set of criteria for excusals, and appears to cover both generic and case-specific. In invoking its exclusivity provision, appellants are effectively claiming (though they don't clearly acknowledge the sweep of their argument) that the Jury Selection and Service Act completely barred the case-specific hardship excuse.
That reading, however, is impossible to square with the statutory definition of hardship excuses, 28 U.S.C. § 1869(j), which expressly addresses instances where "it is anticipated that a trial or grand jury proceeding may require more than thirty days of service," authorizing consideration even of the employer's interest in such cases.
Although no completely satisfactory reading appears available, it seems clear that § 1866(c)(1)'s requirement that a person excused on hardship grounds "be summoned again for jury service" or that his name "be reinserted into the qualified jury wheel for [future] selection" aims at assuring that a hardship excuse valid at one point in time not be turned into a lifetime excuse regardless of changing circumstances. As the trial judge here did not even release the "excused" jurors from their current terms of service, his acts represented de facto compliance with § 1866(c)(1). We thus share