Opinion ID: 223165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The St. Louis Evidence; Sanders’ Affidavit

Text: Even if we assume 1) defense counsel had not properly investigated the potential testimony from Campbell and Sanders and 2) the prosecution was aware of the substance of their testimony, Nichols was not prejudiced by the failure to suppress the evidence in the St. Louis apartment. The events in St. Louis had nothing to do with the 2002 traffic stop which is the basis for his conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin. The events in St. Louis relate only to the conspiracy charge. In Nichols I, we rejected Nichols’ insufficient evidence of a conspiracy argument: The evidence showed Nichols and Mitchell had known each other for - 13 - nearly two years, at least. Mitchell was present in the Land Rover at the time of the St. Louis stop, where marijuana was found in the vehicle, and gave a false name to police at that time. Since Mitchell was from Sacramento, and the confidential informant had reported that the Land Rover was on its way to California, a jury could reasonably infer Nichols and Mitchell planned to travel to Sacramento together on that occasion. At the time of the Kansas stop, nearly two years later, Nichols and Mitchell were again traveling together, this time from Sacramento on the way to St. Louis. Both trips appeared to involve purchasing or transporting heroin for distribution. We believe this evidence, together with the reasonable inferences therefrom, is sufficient to indicate concert of action for the accomplishment of a common purpose. 374 F.3d at 971 (quotations omitted). Critically, we did not rely on any of the evidence retrieved from Nichols’ apartment in affirming his conspiracy conviction. Therefore, he has failed to show that, even if the outcome of the suppression hearing were different and the guns, heroin and heroin grinder from the apartment were not admitted, the outcome of his trial would have been different. Nichols’ sentencing would also remain unaffected. A two point enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2D1.11(b)(1) was applied to Nichols’ base offense level because of the guns found in his apartment with the heroin. However, even if this evidence were suppressed at trial, it was admissible at Nichols’ sentencing. See United States v. Hinson, 585 F.3d 1328, 1335 n.3 (10th Cir. 2009) (“The exclusionary rule does not bar the admission of the fruits of an illegal search at sentencing unless the illegal search was conducted with the intent to obtain evidence that would increase the defendant's sentence.”). Therefore, his sentence was not increased by defense counsel’s failure to successfully suppress the weapons evidence by presenting Sanders’ affidavit or testimony. - 14 -