Opinion ID: 609824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Future execution and the Ex Post Facto clause

Text: 139 At the present time, there is no federal statute prescribing a method for carrying out federal death sentences. Chandler contends that any future Congressional legislation specifying a method of execution would have retroactive effect in violation of the ex post facto clause. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 3. In effect, Chandler argues that his current sentence is life imprisonment under a sentence of death. Once Congress acts, the punishment would increase to death. 140 The ex post facto clause prohibits any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)). The clause does not prohibit a law that changes a statute's procedure, but does not affect matters of substance. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977) (new Florida capital statute that cured constitutional defects in old capital statute by amending the death sentencing procedure, but not the quantum of punishment attached to the crime, did not violate ex post facto clause). 141 Chandler's attack is foreclosed by Dobbert. The statute under which Chandler was sentenced to death clearly provided for such a sentence, so there was clear notice that a violator of the law might be sentenced to death. Future legislation would not increase the punishment, but would only provide for the method by which the punishment would be carried out; a change in procedure, not the sentence. Congressional legislation prescribing the method of execution would thus not increase the punishment imposed on Chandler. 10. The sentence 142 Chandler also complains that his present situation, in which he faces a death sentence without knowing when or how that sentence will be carried out, is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Chandler relies on In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 10 S.Ct. 384, 33 L.Ed. 835 (1890). In Medley, a defendant was convicted and sentenced under a state capital statute that became effective after the commission of the murder. The new statute amended the previous capital statute in part by requiring a convicted defendant to be held in solitary confinement until execution, allowing the warden to fix the date of execution, and mandating that the prisoner be kept in ignorance of his execution date. The Supreme Court held that the new statute violated the ex post facto clause because it increased the defendant's punishment. 143 Because the Court's decision rested on ex post facto grounds, it provides no support for Chandler's arguments that his current situation is cruel and unusual punishment. We see no reason that his current sentence is unconstitutional. The majority of convicted murderers on death row do not know when they will be executed because of the lengthy appeal process as well as other reasons. Chandler's situation is no different from these individuals, or for that matter from most other people who do not know when their lives will end or in what manner. 144 B. Challenges To The Conviction On Count Three 145 Count Three of the indictment charged Chandler with the murder of Shuler while engaged in and working in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e). Chandler contends on several grounds that his conviction on this count was improper. 146 1. Connection between the continuing criminal enterprise and the murder Section 848(e)(1)(A) states that 147 any person engaging in or working in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise ... who intentionally kills or counsels, commands, induces, procures, or causes the intentional killing of an individual and such killing results, shall be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, which shall not be less than 20 years, and which may be up to life imprisonment, or may be sentenced to death. 148 The government and Chandler agree that Section 848(e) requires a connection between the underlying continuing criminal enterprise and Shuler's murder in order for the Chandler to be convicted under this statute. Chandler contends, however, that his conviction should be reversed because the indictment failed to allege, and the district court's instructions did not require the jury to find, a connection between the murder and the enterprise. Chandler posits that these defects allowed the jury to return a guilty verdict based upon a finding that Chandler was involved in Shuler's murder contemporaneously with his involvement in the criminal enterprise even if the murder was unrelated to the enterprise. Chandler contends that the jury could have found that Chandler solicited Shuler's death because of Shuler's abusive treatment of his family, yet still return a guilty verdict on Count Three. 149
150 The indictment charged in Count Three that Chandler: 151 while engaged in and working in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, intentionally killed and counseled, commanded, induced, procured and caused the intentional killing of Marlin Shuler, and such killing resulted, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 848(e)(1)(A), and Title 18 United States Code, Section 2. 152 RII-221-Court Exhibit No. 1-12. 153 The indictment was sufficient because it did require a nexus between the enterprise and the murder of Shuler. An indictment may track the language of the statute as long as 'those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.'  Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); United States v. Ramos, 666 F.2d 469, 474 (11th Cir.1982). 154 The language of the indictment is sufficient. The indictment tracks the language of the statute as written by Congress. Moreover, any reasonable reading of the indictment makes it clear that the government was charging Chandler with a murder in connection with, and not just contemporaneous to, the ongoing continuing criminal enterprise. The necessary connection between the murder and the enterprise was thus present in the indictment. 155
156 The instruction given by the district court to the jury stated, 157 So count 3 is built upon count 2, which it is built upon count 1. Then goes on and charges on or about May 8, 1990 in or about an area known as Snow's Lake near Piedmont, Alabama in the Northern District of Alabama, the defendant ... while engaged in and working in furtherance of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, intentionally killed and counseled, commanded, induced, procured and caused the intentional killing of Marlin Shuler.... 158 RXIII-186. The district court further instructed that Section 848(e)(1) make[s] it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone, while engaging [in] a Continuing Criminal Enterprise such as the one charged in count 2, to kill an individual or to command or cause the intentional killing of an individual. Id. at 187. The court then enumerated the elements in a Section 848(e)(1) offense: 159 First, that while engaging in or working in furtherance of the Continuing Criminal Enterprise charged in court 2, the defendant either killed Marlin Shuler or commanded, induced, procured or caused the intentional killing of Marlin Shuler, as charged in count 3 and (2), that the death of Marlin Shuler resulted from such activity of the defendant and, (3), that such activity of the defendant was done knowingly and willfully. 160 Id. Again, Chandler argues that these instructions allowed the jury to return a guilty verdict even if they found no connection between the enterprise and Chandler's solicitation of Shuler's murder. 161 Chandler failed to request a jury instruction concerning the charge he now claims was erroneous, nor did he object to the charge that was given. Thus, we review the charge for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The instructions are reviewed under the standard discussed above. 5 162 The instructions informed the jury that Count Three, the murder charge, was built upon Count Two, the continuing criminal enterprise charge. The district court also instructed the jury that there must be a connection between the murder and the continuing criminal enterprise. The connection was described once as while engaged in and in furtherance of the enterprise and later stated as while engaged in or in furtherance of the enterprise. RXIII-186, 187. There is nothing vague about this clear and direct expression. Additionally, the prosecution introduced evidence and argued repeatedly that Chandler had solicited the murder of Shuler because Shuler had informed on one of Chandler's dealers. 163 There is no reasonable likelihood that the jury believed that it could find Chandler guilty even if it found that he solicited Shuler's murder for reasons not connected to the continuing criminal enterprise. The instructions clearly conveyed to the jury that it must find a connection between Shuler's murder and the enterprise. The mere use of the word or by the district court once during the jury instructions is exactly the type of artificial isolation that the Supreme Court rejected in Cupp v. Naughten. 414 U.S. at 147, 94 S.Ct. at 400. 2. Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3432 164 In any case in which a federal defendant is charged with a capital offense, at least three days before the commencement of trial, the prosecution must furnish the defendant with a copy of the indictment, a list of the veniremen and a list of the witnesses to be produced at the trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3432. On March 5, 1991, the government provided Chandler with a witness list. The list was supplemented on March 15, 1991. 165 The list did not include the name of Tim Whatley, a witness called by the prosecution. Whatley, an Anniston, Alabama, police officer, testified that in a search of Chandler's home he seized a piece of paper with the words Bill Broome and copy of police report on it. 166 Chandler contends that Whatley was improperly allowed to testify in violation of Section 3432. Chandler did not object when the government called Whatley as a witness, and objected to the admission of the piece of paper only on the grounds of relevancy, materiality, and identification. RXI-36. Therefore, we review for plain error. 167 We first determine whether an error occurred and whether it was plain. The failure to include Whatley on the witness list was a technical violation of Section 3432, and it was an obvious error. Because this is an error that does not undermine the basic reliability of the trial process, Chandler must demonstrate that the error affected the outcome of the case. 168 Chandler cites United States v. Crowell, 442 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir.1971). In Crowell, the prosecution in a capital case did not provide the defendant with a list of the veniremen. The court held that Section 3432 is mandatory, and a defendant indicted for a capital offense must be given the benefits of its provisions, and the failure to allow defendant its benefits would be plain error. Id. at 348 (citation omitted). 6 169 We find that Crowell is distinguishable and that Chandler has not demonstrated that the error affected the outcome of his case. Chandler assigns as error the testimony of one police officer that the prosecution used to establish the chain of custody for the introduction of a piece of evidence. The officer's testimony was in no other respect important. Chandler makes no claim that his defense was in any way prejudiced by the failure to include Whatley's name on the government's witness list or that he was unaware that the government would attempt to introduce the piece of paper as evidence. Indeed, the government made the piece of paper available to Chandler pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C). Whatley had also written his name on the paper when it was seized. Thus, the purpose of Section 3432 as described in Logan was fulfilled because the defense was made aware that the government would attempt to link Chandler to the murder of Shuler in part through the piece of paper. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the calling of Whatley as a witness for the government did not affect the outcome of Chandler's case. 7 3. Lesser included offense 170 Chandler challenges the absence of an instruction to the jury that it could find Chandler guilty of the lesser included offense of the use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder for hire, 18 U.S.C. § 1958, an offense that does not carry the possibility of a death sentence. Chandler did not request the lesser included offense instruction and did not object to the district court's omission of such an instruction. 171 The government may not statutorily preclude a defendant from seeking a lesser included offense instruction, if the evidence could support a finding of guilt on the lesser offense. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). We have interpreted Beck as granting a defendant, who faces the possibility of a death sentence, the constitutional right to have a lesser included instruction read to the jury. Rembert v. Dugger, 842 F.2d 301, 303 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 969, 109 S.Ct. 500, 102 L.Ed.2d 536 (1988). In both Beck and Rembert, the defendant requested that the district court give a lesser included offense instruction. Here no such request was made. 172 The Court has also held that [a]lthough the Beck rule rests on the premise that a lesser included offense instruction in a capital case is of benefit to the defendant, there may well be cases in which the defendant will be confident enough that the State has not proved capital murder that he will want to take his chances with the jury. Spaziano, 468 U.S. at 456, 104 S.Ct. at 3160. Other circuits have held that when a defendant fails to request a lesser included offense instruction in a capital case, the district court does not err in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense. Kubat v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 351, 365-66 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874, 110 S.Ct. 206, 107 L.Ed.2d 159 (1989); Look v. Amaral, 725 F.2d 4, 8-9 (1st Cir.1984). 173 We agree with the holding in Kubat that requiring a district court to give a lesser included offense instruction might be at odds with the trial strategy of defense counsel. Trial judges should be sensitive to and respectful of such difficult decisions made by counsel. Accordingly, we find that because Chandler did not request an instruction or object to the omission of an instruction for the lesser included offense of murder for hire, the district court did not err by failing to give such an instruction sua sponte. 8 174 4. The offense in Count Three of the indictment 175 Chandler argues that his conviction under Count Three of the indictment is invalid because Section 848(e) does not define an offense. Instead, Chandler submits that Section 848(e) is merely a sentencing provision that authorizes the death penalty without proscribing conduct. 176 The Fifth Circuit has squarely rejected this argument, and the reasoning of that court is persuasive. United States v. Villarreal, 963 F.2d 725, 727-28 (5th Cir.) (rejecting claim that Section 848(e)(1)(B) does not define an offense), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 353, 121 L.Ed.2d 267 (1992). Section 848(e) sets forth the elements of the crime (any person engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise who procures the intentional killing of an individual), the mens rea (intent), and a separate penalty (20 years imprisonment to life, or the death penalty). Similarly, the conduct proscribed in Section 848(e) is referred to as an offense in subsections (g), (h), (i), (j), (n), and (p). We find Chandler's argument meritless. 5. Appointment of additional counsel 177 Chandler challenges the district court's failure to inform him of his right to have a second attorney appointed on his behalf pursuant to either 18 U.S.C. § 3005 or 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(4). The time sequence of events in this case foreclose Chandler's claims. On December 13, 1990, the original indictment, which did not contain a capital charge against Chandler, was returned. On December 20, 1990, the district court appointed counsel to represent Chandler. On January 7, 1991, L. Drew Redden entered his appearance as retained attorney of record for Chandler. The appearance was filed with the court on January 10. On January 9, the superseding indictment was returned against Chandler, which included the capital charge. 18 U.S.C. § 3005 states: 178 [w]hoever is indicted for ... [a] capital crime shall be allowed to make his full defense ...; and the court ... shall immediately, upon his request, assign to him such counsel, not exceeding two, as he may desire.... 179 Chandler did not request the appointment of counsel after the superseding indictment was returned. Therefore, the district court did not violate Section 3005. 180 Section 848(q)(4)(A) provides that a defendant who is charged with a crime punishable by death, but is financially unable to retain counsel, shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys. By the time Chandler had been charged with a capital crime, he had already retained counsel. Therefore, the district court did not err in failing to appoint additional counsel under this section.