Opinion ID: 3064136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Choice of Defense

Text: Hembree next contends that Pinkerton provided ineffective assistance of counsel by choosing a defense based on Hembree’s withdrawal from the conspiracy in lieu of a defense based on the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for a conspiracy charged pursuant to § 846 is five years. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). The requirements of the statute of limitations are satisfied if the government proves that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. United States v. Arnold, 117 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 1997). A conspiracy is presumed to continue so long as its objective has neither been abandoned nor accomplished. United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120, 1124-25 (11th Cir. 1983). A conspirator is presumed to have continued participating in the conspiracy for its duration. See United States v. Finestone, 816 F.2d 583, 589 (11th Cir. 1987). The conspirator can overcome this presumption by establishing that he withdrew from the conspiracy. Id. To do so, he must show that (1) he undertook affirmative steps, inconsistent with the objects of the conspiracy, to disavow or to defeat the conspiratorial objectives and (2) either communicated those acts in a manner reasonably calculated to reach his co-conspirators or linking Hembree to Greg Lake after the execution of a search warrant in Greg Lake’s residence. Thus, the jury was made aware of the fact that the government lacked physical evidence of Hembree’s involvement in the conspiracy. 16 disclosed the illegal scheme to law enforcement authorities.9 Id. Hembree has not shown that Pinkerton’s described conduct was prejudicial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. The evidence does not establish that Hembree would not have been convicted had Pinkerton focused more on arguing that Hembree’s only contribution to the conspiracy occurred before 1997. See id. First, the evidence suggests that the jury was made well aware that the statute of limitations was a concern and that Hembree believed his contribution to the conspiracy last occurred in 1996 and not thereafter. Further discussion of this point would not have altered the jury’s conclusion. Specifically, the record demonstrates that Pinkerton related in his opening statement that Hembree could not be convicted because the government failed to “[bring] a prosecution within the statute of limitations.” The district court also instructed the jury that it must find that the conspiracy extended into the limitations period. Hembree further testified that he retrieved cocaine from Miami and helped to cut and package the cocaine for Greg Lake in 1996 but never assisted Greg Lake or anyone else involved in the conspiracy again after that. Also, there was substantial evidence presented to the jury establishing that 9 “Withdrawal . . . is an affirmative defense, which the defendant has the burden of proving.” Finestone, 816 F.2d at 590. Thus, the government had to show that the conspiracy itself did not stop before July 17, 1997, and Hembree had to show that he personally withdrew from the conspiracy before July 17, 1997. 17 Hembree participated in the conspiracy beyond 1996, so that the jury would have reason to convict Hembree even if Pinkerton pursued this defense more aggressively. See id. The record demonstrates that several witnesses testified that Hembree was involved in trafficking cocaine after July of 1997 and therefore that he participated in the crime within the limitations period. Specifically, Nodie Lake testified that she and Hembree traveled to Miami to retrieve cocaine in July of 1997 and in September of 1997 and that she knew that both of these trips occurred after Hembree’s daughter was born in July of 1997 because she recalled Hembree bathing his daughter in the sink when they returned from the first trip. Greg Lake likewise testified that Hembree traveled to Miami to retrieve cocaine in July of 1997 and in September of 1997. Dr. Nicholas Malamos also testified that he purchased cocaine from Hembree in 1998 and 1999 and that he remembered Hembree’s daughter being present when Hembree delivered cocaine to him on certain occasions. In fact, Malamos stated that Hembree continued to deliver cocaine even after Hembree’s daughter was old enough to walk. Kelli Hembree further testified that Hembree assisted Greg Lake in the trafficking scheme in question after 1997 and that she remembered traveling with Hembree to retrieve cocaine after the birth of their daughter. Hembree also contends that Pinkerton erred by not insisting that the trial 18 court answer a question posed by the jury in a manner different than chosen by the district court judge. Specifically, the jury asked: “If the defendant never withdrew from the conspiracy, does the statute of limitations date apply?” Hembree states that Pinkerton should have insisted that the district court answer this question, “yes.” Instead, Pinkerton consented to the court’s decision to refer the jury back to the jury instructions. On direct appeal, we approved the district court’s handling of this question and the jury instructions. Thus, Pinkerton could not have provided ineffective assistance of counsel by consenting to the district court’s reliance on legally correct jury instructions. Further, the question asked by the jury is sufficiently ambiguous such that a simple “yes” answer, as Hembree urges, or a “no” answer, as the government initially requested, would not have provided the jury with appropriate guidance.