Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1222367.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 11:47:39
Document Index: 350860528

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2002924', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002924', '§\u20023006', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002921', '§\u2002924', '§\u2002924']

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Trent MANNING, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 95-1199.
Before SELYA, CYR and STAHL, Circuit Judges. Robert B. Mann, with whom Mann & Mitchell was on brief, for appellant. Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, with whom Assistant United States Attorneys were on brief, for appellee.
DISCUSSIONA. Motion for Acquittal
Manning argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for using a destructive device 1 during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and so the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on Count II. We review the district court's disposition of a motion for acquittal de novo, viewing the evidence, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586, 589-90 (1st Cir.1994).
Approximately one month after oral arguments in this case, the Supreme Court decided Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), and concluded that “use” of a firearm in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) means “active employment of the firearm” which “includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and most obviously, firing or attempting to fire, a firearm.” Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 505, 508. Our careful review of the record reveals that the government's evidence was insufficient to show “use” under the Bailey standard. The government did not present any evidence that Manning had brandished, displayed, bartered, struck someone with, fired/detonated or attempted to fire/detonate either the 9 millimeter handgun or the six pipe bombs. The evidence presented at trial was simply that Manning had carried the briefcase containing the gun, pipe bombs, drugs, and drug paraphernalia into the garage of 151 Doyle Avenue and nothing more.
The reach of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), however, extends beyond the use of a firearm. Section 924(c)(1) applies to any person who either “uses or carries a firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (emphasis added). At issue, therefore, is whether the government succeeded in presenting evidence sufficient to show that Manning was guilty of carrying a firearm during and in relation to any drug trafficking crime. Conviction under § 924(c)(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning: (1) committed the drug trafficking crime of possession with intent to distribute as charged in the indictment, (2) knowingly carried a firearm, and (3) did so during and in relation to the drug trafficking crime. See United States v. Wilkinson, 926 F.2d 22, 25-26 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211, 111 S.Ct. 2813, 115 L.Ed.2d 985 (1991), and overruled on other grounds by Bailey, 516 U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 509. Because Manning has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of the first element, we restrict our analysis to the last two elements and consider each in turn.
By narrowing the interpretation of “use” to instances of active employment, the Bailey Court recognized that the “carry” prong would take on a new significance. Accordingly, the Court remanded Bailey and its companion case, Robinson v. United States, 514 U.S. 1125, 115 S.Ct. 1997, 131 L.Ed.2d 999 to the District of Columbia Circuit to consider liability for Bailey and Robinson under the “carry” prong of § 924(c)(1). Bailey, 516 U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 509. In Bailey and Robinson, the firearms were found in the trunk of a car and in a locked trunk in a bedroom closet, respectively. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 503-04. Determining whether firearms found in these locations were carried will require the District of Columbia Circuit to test the limits of the proper understanding of “carry” in § 924(c)(1). We need not determine the precise contours of the “carry” prong here, however, as Manning's actions meet any reasonable construction of the word. See Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228-30, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 2054, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993) (noting that words not defined by statute should be given their ordinary or common meaning).
The word “carry” is variously defined as “to move while supporting (as ․ in one's hands or arms),” “to move an appreciable distance without dragging,” and “to bring along to another place.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 343 (1986). Manning's alleged actions readily meet all of these definitions. The government presented the testimony of Detective Lennon that he saw Manning standing outside his Cherokee and in front of the garage of 151 Doyle Avenue, holding the briefcase; that he watched Manning, while holding the briefcase in his left hand, walk into the garage; and that minutes later upon discovering the briefcase in the garage, he opened it and found, inter alia, a loaded 9 millimeter handgun and six pipe bombs. A reasonable juror could easily conclude from this evidence that Manning had carried the handgun and pipe bombs. In walking from the Cherokee to the garage while holding the briefcase in his left hand, Manning certainly was “moving” the briefcase “while supporting” it in his hand. And if Manning was carrying the briefcase, he necessarily was carrying the contents thereof, namely, the handgun and pipe bombs.
The government also presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Manning carried the gun and bombs “during” and “in relation to” the crime of possession with intent to distribute. Evidence that Manning carried the gun and pipe bombs contemporaneously with the two bags of cocaine and the drug paraphernalia readily satisfies the “during” requirement. See United States v. Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d 1142, 1151 (1st Cir.1995) (holding that gun “carried at a time when the offense was in progress” constituted “during” for purposes of § 924(c)(1)). Evidence that Manning carried the gun and bombs in the same briefcase as the drugs readily satisfies the “in relation to” requirement.
B. Admissibility of Evidence of Uncharged Misconduct
Manning argues that the district court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine him about his prior drug dealing and to introduce the items seized from the basement of 151 Doyle Avenue. Manning's attorney objected to the introduction of this evidence as impermissible “uncharged misconduct” evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and, in the alternative, unduly prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403. After reciting the standard of review, we consider Manning's testimony on cross-examination and the items seized from the basement, in turn.
Because the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, we will reverse on appeal only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 1160, 1172 (1st Cir.1993). We will reverse a district court's Rule 403 balancing “only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” Id. at 1173 (quoting United States v. Garcia-Rosa, 876 F.2d 209, 221 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1030, 110 S.Ct. 742, 107 L.Ed.2d 760 (1990)).
Manning also challenges the district court's admission of items such as scales, bags, glassine packets stamped “Super Power” and “Hot Pursuit,” rubber bands, and straws, seized from the basement and garage of 151 Doyle Avenue. Manning's assertion, however, that the items seized are governed by Rule 404(b) is wide of the mark. Rule 404(b), by its very terms, excludes only extrinsic evidence-“evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts”-whose probative value exclusively depends upon a forbidden inference of criminal propensity. Hadfield, 918 F.2d at 994. Evidence intrinsic to the crime for which the defendant is on trial, accordingly, is not governed by Rule 404(b). United States v. Tutiven, 40 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1994) (“The cases are legion in which similar intrinsic circumstantial evidence has been admitted without occasioning either challenge or analysis under Rule 404(b).”), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1031, 115 S.Ct. 1391, 131 L.Ed.2d 243 (1995).
The items seized from 151 Doyle Avenue most certainly qualify as intrinsic to the crime of possession with intent to distribute with which Manning was charged. During the search on October 7, 1991, each of the items were found in the basement of 151 Doyle Avenue, save one scale discovered in the garage. Should a juror have chosen to believe that Manning occupied the basement bedroom of 151 Doyle Avenue,2 the existence of the drug paraphernalia there is directly probative of both Manning's knowledge that the bags in the briefcase contained cocaine and his intention to distribute that cocaine. See United States v. Nason, 9 F.3d 155, 162 (1st Cir.1993) (upholding admission of scales, bags, and baggies seized from motel room registered to defendant's girlfriend at time of defendant's arrest on the marijuana charges for which he was on trial), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1207, 114 S.Ct. 1331, 127 L.Ed.2d 678 (1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug-paraphernalia evidence.
C. Request for an Expert
Manning also complains that the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of an expert. The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1), provides that “a person who is financially unable to obtain ․ expert ․ services necessary for an adequate defense” may obtain them after demonstrating in an ex parte hearing that such services are “necessary.” A district court's denial of a request for such services is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateos-Sanchez, 864 F.2d 232, 240 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Fosher, 590 F.2d 381, 384 (1st Cir.1979).
Generally, expert services have been found necessary when the proffered expert testimony was pivotal to the indigent defendant's defense. See Mateos-Sanchez, 864 F.2d at 239-40. For instance, courts have appointed a fingerprint expert when a fingerprint, alleged to be the defendant's, was the primary means of connecting the defendant to the crime, see United States v. Durant, 545 F.2d 823, 827 (2d Cir.1976), and a psychiatrist when the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense was at issue, see United States v. Williams, 998 F.2d 258, 264 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1099, 114 S.Ct. 940, 127 L.Ed.2d 230 (1994). Manning's proffered expert testimony on the adequacy of the police investigation, however, was not critical or necessary to his defense.
D. Jury Nullification
Because we reverse Manning's conviction on Count II for jury coercion, see part II.G. infra, we need not reach this issue. We nonetheless offer the following cursory analysis of the second argument as guidance. We have consistently held that a district court may not instruct the jury as to its power to nullify. See United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1190 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1223, 114 S.Ct. 2714, 129 L.Ed.2d 840 (1994); United States v. Desmarais, 938 F.2d 347, 350 (1st Cir.1991); Garcia-Rosa, 876 F.2d at 226; United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110, 116 (1st Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1124, 25 L.Ed.2d 398 (1970). An attorney's attempt to achieve the same end indirectly, by arguing the severity of the punishment to the jury, is equally impermissible. See United States v. Calhoun, 49 F.3d 231, 236 n. 6 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that a defendant did not have the right to inform the jury of possible punishment or of its power to nullify a law or sentence); cf. United States v. Coast of Maine Lobster Co., 538 F.2d 899, 903-04 (1st Cir.1976) (holding that prosecutor's televised comment that white collar criminal sentences are too small, communicated to jurors of ongoing white collar criminal trial, created reversible error).
E. Motion to Suppress
Manning attacks the district court's denial of his suppression motion on two grounds. First, Manning contends that the affidavit supporting the search warrant does not establish probable cause, citing the staleness of the information regarding the confidential informant's controlled buy, the dearth of information about that informant's credibility, and a general lack of detail. Second, Manning contests the district court's refusal to conduct an in camera proceeding to test the reliability of the confidential informant (“CI”) regarding the controlled buy. Manning argues that an in camera review was necessary to his mounting a Franks challenge 6 to the accuracy of the officer's statements in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. After summarizing the affidavit, we consider Manning's second claim first.
On October 7, 1991, to support his application for a warrant to search 151 Doyle Avenue, Detective Lussier attested to the following facts. “During the past few weeks,” while Lussier was investigating marijuana trafficking at 151 Doyle Avenue, Manning had used keys to enter 151 Doyle Avenue and appeared to be living there. While Manning was home, several people had come to the rear door of the house and stayed for only a short time. Lussier took numerous phone complaints about narcotics trafficking at 151 Doyle Avenue. A CI, who had bought marijuana from Manning previously, made a controlled buy from Manning at 151 Doyle Avenue. Before the buy, Lussier searched the CI for money and contraband, gave the CI money, and witnessed the CI enter the rear of the house.
We recognize that when an affidavit relies primarily on information provided by a CI, a defendant will lack the information needed to make a Franks showing. See United States v. Higgins, 995 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993). In such cases, where the defendant challenges the accuracy of the affidavit but has failed to make the “substantial preliminary showing” required by Franks, the court may conduct an in camera interview of the officer-affiant, and, if necessary, of the informant. See United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1, 10-11 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 89, 78 L.Ed.2d 97 (1983). A district court is not required to do so, however; the decision whether an in camera proceeding is needed to test the officer-affiant's 7 credibility rests entirely with the district court. See United States v. Jackson, 918 F.2d 236, 241 (1st Cir.1990). We review a district court's denial of a defendant's request for an in camera proceeding for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Valerio, 48 F.3d 58, 62-63 (1st Cir.1995); Higgins, 995 F.2d at 3.
As the district court recognized, however, two problems inhere in this reasoning. First, the affidavit does not provide that the controlled buy occurred on October 7, 1991.8 Second, even if it did, Mrs. Manning's testimony does not “preclude at all the possibility that Officer ․ Lussier is telling the truth.” Mrs. Manning admitted that Manning was at 151 Doyle Avenue for at least some period of time on October 7, 1991, and she did not claim that he was never out of her sight. Given the tenuous basis for Manning's challenge to Lussier's veracity, the district court's denial of Manning's request for an in camera review was well within its discretion.
Having so decided, we quickly dispose of Manning's challenge to the validity of the search warrant for lack of probable cause. Assuming arguendo that Manning is correct about the warrant's invalidity, we nonetheless agree with the district court's conclusion that the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule applies here. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3415, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). In Leon, the Supreme Court held that, with limited exception, the exclusionary rule should not apply when police officers reasonably rely on a warrant that subsequently is determined to be invalid. 468 U.S. at 922, 104 S.Ct. at 3420. Upon de novo review, see United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 975 (1st Cir.1994) (reviewing district court's “ultimate constitutional conclusions” in a suppression order de novo ), we find that Lussier's affidavit had ample indicia of probable cause “ ‘to render official belief in its existence’ ” reasonable. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-11, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265-66, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of the motion to suppress the items seized from 151 Doyle Avenue.
F. Jury Instructions
Our reversal of Manning's conviction on Count II for jury coercion, see part II.G. infra, however, renders consideration of the legality of the court's § 924(c)(1) instruction unnecessary.9
G. Responses to Jury's Inquiry
Manning contests the district court's responses to a specific jury query on two grounds: (1) that the district court's response was tantamount to a directive that the jury must reach a verdict on Count II, and (2) that the district court did not cure this harm by polling the jurors-after they had reached a verdict but before the verdict was taken-on whether they had felt compelled to reach a verdict. Mindful of the district court's broad discretion in “the giving, or withholding, of a supplemental instruction, or the contents of it if given,” United States v. Parent, 954 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir.1992), we nonetheless find that the district court transgressed the bounds of its discretion under the unusual set of circumstances that unfolded after the jury retired to deliberate. See United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 227 (1st Cir.1991) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court's denial of jury's request to have testimony read back). We outline the relevant history.
The jury began its deliberations in earnest 10 on the morning of November 22, 1994. After a few hours, the jury sent the court a note, asking “Which scale was found in the bedroom and which scale had the fingerprint?” After consulting the parties, the district court responded, “It would not be proper for me to tell you what the evidence establishes or does not establish. That's a matter that only you can determine.” Later, the jury sent another communication to the court, this time stating, “We do not have an [sic] unanimous decision on Count Number Two. Must we continue to discuss until we have? It is apparent that we'll not change our minds.” At a chamber conference with both counsel, the court proposed the following response: “Would reading any portion of the testimony to you assist you in reaching a decision? If so, please tell me what portions of testimony of which witness you would like.” Perceiving deadlock on Count II, Manning's attorney objected to the court's response and moved for a mistrial. In the alternative, he proposed that the response advise the jury that it was not obliged to reach a verdict. The district court denied the motion, rejected the suggestion, and sent its suggested response.
The jury then informed the court, “We would like to hear testimony from Officer Lennon and Agent Lennon.” Over Manning's continued objection, the court replied, “Is their [sic] any particular portion or portions of the testimony of Officer Lennon or Agent Lennon that would be helpful to you?” After receiving no reply, the district court had the clerk ask the jurors whether they wished to continue deliberating or go home and return the next day. Thereafter, the court received a note stating that a verdict had been reached. Apparently concerned about the effect of its second response, the district court, before taking the verdict, queried the jury collectively in open court as follows:
This court has recognized that when a jury indicates that it is deadlocked, a supplementary charge instructing it to return and attempt to reach a verdict may prejudice a defendant. See United States v. Angiulo, 485 F.2d 37, 39 (1st Cir.1973). For instance, “such a charge may cause a jury to agree when they might otherwise never have come to agreement, thereby losing for the defendant whatever safeguard he might have had in a hung jury, a declaration of mistrial, and either a new trial or a subsequent decision by the prosecutor not to retry the case.” Id. Accordingly, we have instructed district courts to include three elements in any such supplementary charge to ameliorate its prejudicial effect. Id. A district court should instruct jurors in substance that (1) members of both the majority and the minority should reexamine their positions, (2) a jury has the right to fail to agree, and (3) the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt remains with the government. Id.
Having indicated that it was deadlocked on Count II, the jury in the present case proceeded to inquire whether it was obliged to reach a verdict on Count II. Rather than answering this pointed question “yes” or “no,” the district court responded with a question: “Would reading any portion of the testimony to you assist you in reaching a decision?” This response not only failed to discourage the notion that the jury was bound to continue to deliberate indefinitely, it suggested the opposite, i.e., that a jury is required to do so.11 Having asked whether continued deliberation on Count II was necessary, and being offered a review of testimony in response, a rational lay jury could reasonably have inferred that the court wanted it to reach a verdict, regardless of whether it could do so in good conscience.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) defines “firearm” to mean “any destructive device.” Section 921(a)(4) defines “destructive device” to mean “any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas ․ bomb.”
2. The government presented evidence from which the jurors could draw such a conclusion. For instance, the government introduced pager and veterinary bills addressed to Trent Manning, 151 Doyle Avenue and police testimony that these bills were found in the basement bedroom area.
3. We also note that Manning's attorney was able to place these alleged investigative shortcomings before the jury on cross-examination of the officers.
4. This is not to say, however, that expert opinion on the adequacy of a police investigation can never be necessary to an indigent defendant's defense nor do we so rule.
5. Under § 924(c)(1), using or carrying a destructive device carries a mandatory thirty-year prison term.
6. Under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676-77, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), a defendant may overcome the presumption of validity surrounding affidavits supporting search warrants and obtain an evidentiary hearing, if he “makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.”
7. Franks only allows impeachment “of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684.
8. We find no clear error in the district court's not accepting Manning's attorney's recollection that an unnamed police officer, not present during the controlled buy, testified at the preliminary examination that the buy occurred on October 7, 1991.
9. Although its § 924(c)(1) instruction initially made clear that the predicate drug trafficking crime was possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it as charged in Count I, in later instructions, the district court stated that “there must be proof that the firearm was connected to or played a role in the commission of a drug trafficking crime.” (Emphasis added). In future instructions, we caution the district court to endeavor to avoid generic references to “a drug trafficking crime” when referring to the particular predicate offense.
10. The court submitted the case to the jury the previous evening. After deliberating for approximately fifteen minutes, however, the jury chose to go home and reconvene the next morning.
11. Providing a modified Allen charge at this juncture, on the other hand, would have informed the jurors that they need not surrender an honest conviction for the mere purpose of returning a verdict and at the same time encouraged them to try to reach a verdict, fully aware that the onus of reexamination is not on the minority alone and that the burden of proof remains with the government.