Opinion ID: 598512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arthur Lavaughn Harris

Text: 12 Seizing on the aphorism that presence at the location of a conspiracy does not equal participation in that conspiracy, Arthur claims that the evidence showed him merely to have been a barely tolerated 'hanger on'  in the suspected environment. In support of this mere association theory, Arthur cites testimony portraying him as an outsider: he did not possess a gun, was not present when any raids occurred, and was not implicated by any physical evidence gained through the raids. Further, Arthur stresses the absence of evidence that he sold drugs to anyone. Arthur dismisses as incredible the damaging testimony of coconspirator Deborah Young, who described Arthur as having run errands, processed heroin, and packaged heroin in furtherance of the conspiracy. 13 Young's testimony clearly provides a reasonable basis for the jury's decision to convict Arthur on Count One. She directly recited numerous instances of behavior by Arthur indicating knowing, active participation in the conspiracy. Coupling this with evidence showing Arthur to have frequented the drug scenes and sold drugs further supports the rationality of the conspiracy verdict.
14 Arthur also complains that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial premised on the court's admission of certain evidence seized during an arrest at which Arthur was present. On September 9, 1989, police stopped a car, in which Arthur was a passenger, operated by Frederick Vincent. From this car, police removed a police scanner, binoculars, and drug paraphernalia--all apparently belonging to Frederick Vincent. Though Vincent was not an indicted coconspirator, some evidence suggested a connection between Vincent and the conspiracy. 15 The district court expressed reservations about the admissibility of the evidence, questioning its relevancy based partly on the lack of a positive identity between Vincent the driver and a Frederick Vincent mentioned in previous suspicious organizational activities. Despite its misgivings, the court denied, and never reconsidered, Arthur's motion to suppress. Ultimately, despite the Government's willingness to adduce proof establishing Vincent's identity and status as a coconspirator, which would have assured the relevancy of the evidence, the court simply reiterated its denial of Arthur's suppression motion. To this, Arthur inexplicably responded by withdrawing his prior motion for reconsideration. 16 The district court's suppression ruling was correct. First, admission of the evidence was not an abuse of discretion. Though the district court had justifiable doubts about Vincent's identity and coconspiratorial role, the testimony presented would have supported a finding that the driver of the car yielding the suspect evidence was an unindicted coconspirator. This being so, such evidence would have been probative of Arthur's knowledge of the conspiracy and of the conspiracy's scope. See United States v. Martin, 920 F.2d 345, 348 (6th Cir.1990) (approving of inference that defendant knew and approved of coconspirator's actions and contraband), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2038 (1991); see also Fed.R.Evid. 401 (defining [r]elevant evidence to include evidence having any tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable). 17 Additionally, even assuming that the evidence was not relevant, given the record as a whole, its admission was not so prejudicial as to taint the validity of Arthur's conviction. See United States v. Mahar, 801 F.2d 1477, 1503 (6th Cir.1986) (evaluating claim of prejudice from evidentiary error against entire record). The sponsor of the evidence, Officer Bundy, conceded that no evidence connected Arthur to or demonstrated Arthur's knowledge of the seized items. Arthur's own attorney described Bundy, in closing argument, as a virtual defense witness. Finally, the idea that admission of such evidence would weaken Arthur's mere association theory of innocence is spurious. When compared to Arthur's conceded presence at the site of numerous drug activities, it is difficult to perceive significant prejudice arising from Arthur's presence in a vehicle that carried evidence of drug activity in its trunk.