Source: https://m.openjurist.org/200/f3d/895
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 09:10:41
Document Index: 405439109

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 848', '§ 848', '§ 848', '§ 848', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 2255', '§ 631']

200 F. 3d 895 - Robert Dale Murr v. United States of America
200 F3d 895 Robert Dale Murr v. United States of America
Robert Dale Murr, Petitioner-Appellant,
It is well-settled law that failure to raise an argument at trial or on direct appeal is waived on collateral review under § 2255, absent a showing of both cause and actual prejudice. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 164-65, 167 (1982). In this case, Petitioner's double jeopardy claim has been raised for the first time on collateral review. Petitioner did not present this issue at pretrial, at trial, or on direct appeal. Rather, on direct appeal, Petitioner argued only that his prosecution in the Eastern District of Kentucky violated his earlier plea agreement in the Eastern District of Tennessee. Petitioner makes no effort to show cause to excuse this procedural default, nor has he attempted to show that he suffered "actual prejudice" from the alleged error that would undermine the entire integrity of the trial, as required under Frady. Id. at 168-70.
In any event, Petitioner's double jeopardy argument also fails on the merits. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. Double jeopardy protection "applies both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense." United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). In determining whether a defendant has been subjected to successive prosecutions for the same offense, this Court applies the "same elements" test originally set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). "That test asks whethereach offense contains an element not contained in the other. A defendant will be considered placed in double jeopardy only if 'every violation of one statute entails a violation of another.'" United States v. Forman, 180 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (holding that a defendant previously acquitted of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt could be subsequently tried for theft of government property and conversion, even though both prosecutions arose from the same underlying conduct).
Here, the two indictments charge different violations on different days, in differentplaces, which involve different people. The simple fact that all of the charges against Murr involve cocaine does not automatically invoke a threat of double jeopardy. The Tennessee [distribution] convictions and the Kentucky possession with intent to distribute convictions (counts 2 through 9 and 11) clearly involve distinctive transactions and conduct which are all violative of federal laws. Therefore, the Kentucky convictions for possession with intent to distribute do not pose any threat to the Defendant's privilege against double jeopardy.
Lastly, we note that Petitioner's CCE conviction in the Eastern District of Kentucky following his Tennessee conviction on cocaine distribution charges, did not violate double jeopardy principles, even if his cocaine sales to Bobby Freeman were part of the wide-ranging conspiracy alleged in Counts 1 and 13 of the Kentucky indictment. "A substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the 'same offense' for purposes of double jeopardy, even if based upon the same underlying indictments, 'because the essence of a conspiracy offense is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime.'" United States v. Medina, 992 F.2d 573, 588 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 389-90 (1992)). In Felix, the Supreme Court held that the defendant's conspiracy conviction did not violate his double jeopardy rights even though he had already been prosecuted for two of the predicate acts supporting the conspiracy charge. Felix, 503 U.S. at 391-92.
Petitioner contends that the district court's refusal to grant his motion to sever Lawson's case rendered his trial fundamentally unfair because he was prejudiced by Lawson's absence. We disagree.1
First, we note that on the issue of absentia, Petitioner does not seek to assert the rights of Lawson. Rather, Petitioner takes the position that his own entitlement to a fair trial was denied by the adverse effect of co-defendant Lawson's absence. Therefore, Petitioner has standing to raise the absentia issue. See United States v. Edmonson, 962 F.2d 1535, 1544 n.1 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 501 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that while defendant could not challenge the propriety of a jury instruction regarding the flight of her co-defendant, she could challenge it on the ground that it prejudiced her right to a fair trial).
Accordingly, we see no reason to depart from this Court's earlier conclusion that severance was not required. "As a general rule, persons jointly indicted should be tried together." United Statesv. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 446 (6th Cir. 1984). Further, "[t]he jury must be presumed capable of sorting out the evidence and considering the cases of each defendant separately." United States v. Welch, 97 F.3d 142, 147 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Moore, 917 F.2d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 1990). The district court should grant severance to properly joined defendants "only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993); United States v. Long, 190 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 1999). Lastly, the defendant bears the burden of producing "a strong showing of factually specific and compelling prejudice" that will "mislead or confuse the jury." Moore, 917 F.2d at 221; United States v. Davis, 177 F.3d 552, 558 (6th Cir. 1999) (stating that "a defendant seeking severance at trial from co-defendants bears a strong burden and must demonstrate substantial, undue, or compelling prejudice"). If the defendant is "able to show some potential jury confusion, such confusion must be balanced against society's interest in speedy and efficient trials." Moore, 917 F.2d at 221.
III. Specific Unanimity Jury Instruction / Retroactive Application of Richardson.
The district court's failure to instruct the jurors that they must unanimously agree about which narcotics violations constitute the "continuing series" of predicate violations for continuing criminal enterprise purposes, does not require that Petitioner's CCE conviction and sentence be vacated.2
In order to sustain a conviction for engaging in a CCE, the government must prove (i) a felony violation of a federal narcotics law; (ii) as a part of a "continuing series" of at least three violations; (iii) "in concert with five or more persons"; (iv) for whom the defendant is an organizer, supervisor or manager; and (v) from which he derives substantial income or resources. See 21 U.S.C. § 848(c)(1994). In Richardson v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 1707, 1713 (1999), the Supreme Court held for the first time that a jury must unanimously agree on which specific violations constitute the "continuing series" of three or more predicate violations required to prove that a defendant engaged in a CCE. Moreover, the Court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jurors that the "violations" are themselves elements of the CCE and, therefore, the jury was required to agree unanimously about which three (or more) related drug crimes Petitioner committed. Id. On appeal, Petitioner argues that Richardson applies retroactively; therefore, his CCE conviction and sentence must be vacated because the district court failed to so instruct the jury.
In Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987), the Supreme Court held that "a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final." In Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Court later modified this rule to answer questions of retroactivity for cases on collateral review. In Teague, the Court stated that as a general rule, "new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to these cases which have become final before the new rules are announced." Id. at 310. The Court then set forth two exceptions to this general rule. First, a new rule should apply retroactively if it places "certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe." Id. at 311 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, a new rule should apply retroactively if it requires the observance of "those procedures that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, the central issue of whether retroactivity applies is whether Teague applies. Teague only applies if the new case for which retroactive effect is sought announces a procedural rule; if the new case announces a substantive rule, Teague does not apply. See Bousley v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1604, 1609 (1998).
Richardson involves the issue of jury unanimity. There, the Court determined that a jury must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some "continuing series of violations," but also about which specific "violations" make up that "continuing series." Richardson, 119 S. Ct. at 1713. To arrive at this holding, the Court interpreted 21 U.S.C. § 848, the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute. The Court stated that "we must decide whether the statute's phrase 'series of violations' refers to one element, namely a 'series,' in respect to which the 'violations' constitute the underlying brute facts or means, or whether those words create several elements, namely the several 'violations,' in respect to each of which the jury must agree unanimously and separately." Id. at 1710. Because the Court engaged in such deliberations, Petitioner claims thatthe decision in Richardson was a matter of substantive law, and therefore, Teague does not apply. As a result, the holding in Richardson should apply retroactively. We agree with Petitioner's contention.
Richardson involves the substantive construction of a criminal statute. The Court in Richardson examined the meaning of § 848(c)'s phrase "series of violations," and determined that it meant the jury must agree that the defendant committed some continuing series of violations, and which specific violations make up that continuing series. Richardson, 119 S. Ct. at 1713. Therefore, in light of Bousley, Richardson applies retroactively because it set forth substantive law. See Bousley, 118 S. Ct. at 1609.
The analysis does not, however, end at this point. We affirm Petitioner's CCE conviction and sentence because the harmless error doctrine applies and the district court's error in failing to instruct the jury was harmless. The Richardson Court noted the application of harmless error in such instances, as it remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to determine "whether to engage in harmless error analysis, and if so, whether the error was harmless in this case." Richardson, 119 S. Ct. at 1713. See Neder v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 1837 (1999) (holding that the trial court's omission during its jury instructions of an essential element of the offense charged is subject to harmless error review); United States v. Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d 148, 161 (1st Cir.1999) (holding that the district court's failure to include a CCE unanimity instruction under Richardson was only harmless error).
The error here was harmless. First, the jury's decision to convict Petitioner on Counts 2 through 11 of the indictment -- which were alleged to be predicate violations supporting the CCE count -- necessarily establishes that the jurors agreed unanimously that he was guilty of those offenses. "This decision ensures that the concern at the core of the Richardson decision -- namely, that jurors might convict on the basis of violations for which there was non-unanimity -- is not present." Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d at 162.
Second, given the evidence adduced at trial, in finding Petitioner guilty of Counts 2 through 11, the jury necessarily made factual findings establishing that these violations were related to one another. As noted, § 848(c) requires that jurors agree that the "series" of narcotics violations be "continuing" in nature -- in other words, that they be related to each other in some way. See, e.g., United States v. Edmonds, 80 F.3d 810, 822 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc) (holding that the jury must unanimously agree that the underlying narcotics violations were "related" to each other for CCE purposes). In the instant case, Counts 2 through 11 each charged that while in Lexington, Kentucky, the defendants, including Petitioner, possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, on or about the following time periods:
August 25, 1988 (count 2);
September, October and November of 1988 (counts 3, 4 and 5);February, March and April of 1989 (counts 6, 7 and 8);
May 8 and 9, 1989 (counts 9 and 10); and
May 18, 1989 (count 11).3(J.A. at 156-63.) At trial, the government presented substantial evidence that these narcotics violations were committed as part of the wide-ranging conspiracy, headed by Petitioner, to acquire and distribute cocaine. Notably, Petitioner -- who does not contest the accuracy of the evidence presented at trial -- nowhere contends that these violations were isolated events that by chance happened in sequence and involved the same people.
Accordingly, the district court's failure to expressly instruct jurors that they must unanimously agree which offenses constitute the CCE did not have a substantial and injurious influence or effect on the jury's guilty verdict in the CCE count. See Long, 190 F.3d at 476 n.3 (concluding that the district court's failure to give the CCE unanimity instruction required under Richardson "was clearly harmless as the jury also unanimously found him guilty of more than three drug violations committed in the course of the ongoing conspiracy to distribute cocaine"); Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d at 162 (holding that the erroneous CCE instruction was harmless where "[t]he evidence introduced to support the separate convictions on the [predicate narcotics violations] also establishes inescapably their relatedness").
Before moving to the merits, we note that Petitioner's argument may be procedurally barred. Petitioner did not raise this claim in his initial § 2255 motion. Rather, it was first raised in his supplemental objections to the magistrate judge's final Report and Recommendation. The magistrate thus never had the opportunity to consider this issue. Courts have held that while the Magistrate Judge Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq., permits de novo review by the district court if timely objections are filed, absent compelling reasons, it does not allow parties to raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented to the magistrate. See United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (10th Cir. 1996) ("issues raised for the first time in objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation are deemed waived")); see also Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 1994); Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988); Anna Ready Mix, Inc. v. N.E. Pierson Constr. Co., Inc., 747 F. Supp. 1299, 1302-03 (S.D. Ill. 1990). Hence, Petitioner's failure to raise this claim before the magistrate constitutes waiver. Nonetheless, Petitioner's claim fails on the merits.
The jury acquitted Petitioner of count 12, which charged cocaine possession with the intent to distribute on April 11, 1990 -- after Petitioner had already been in federal custody for at least eight months.