Opinion ID: 2647007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alias Arguments

Text: From the time of his arrest through the beginning of trial, Campbell's identity was hotly contested. When he was arrested on August 22, 2011, a driver's license issued to Theotis Leonard was in his pocket.4 He assumed this identity through booking and continued to use this name for some time in statements to law enforcement. However, when the police ran Theotis Leonard's fingerprints, they came back as belonging to Rashide Campbell instead. Unsurprisingly then, the initial August 23, 2011, indictment read United States of America v. Rashide Campbell a/k/a Theotis Leonard. Campbell persisted in his refusal to identify himself. Indeed, his November 1, 2011, trial brief states [t]here is also an issue of Defendant's identity, which to date has not been established by the Government. At a November 29, 2011, pretrial hearing that included discussions of Campbell's identity, the prosecutor told the trial judge that Campbell refused to identify himself in the initial appearance on the first indictment. Further complicating the matter, the prosecutor informed the court that the real Theotis Leonard was arrested in Waterville two weeks after this guy [Campbell] was incarcerated. 4 This was never brought to the jury's attention pursuant to the trial judge's pretrial ruling that evidence of Campbell's attempts to conceal his identity or of his flight was not admissible at trial. The name Theotis Leonard was never uttered by anyone at trial. -7- Defense counsel did not controvert or object to any of these factual representations, but simply indicated the only identification he has given this entire time is Theotis Leonard. Although not stated explicitly in the record, this identification confusion surely explains the October 26, 2011, superseding indictment identifying Campbell as John Doe a/k/a Tony a/k/a Rashide Campbell a/k/a Theotis Leonard (the John Doe Indictment). Jury selection took place November 7, 2011. Further illustrative of the identity issue in play is the following jury voir dire question requested by defense counsel: The Defendant in this case is referred to as John Doe because the Government is unaware of his true identity. Would any juror be influenced by this fact relative to being able to fairly and impartially decide the evidence in this case[?]5 Also, the parties agree that the John Doe Indictment was read to the prospective jurors. Although we have not been provided with a transcript of the day's events, we assume that all the aliases must also have been read to the jury, as this would have been necessary to determine if anyone in the pool knew Campbell by any of the names he went by. There is no indication in the record, and Campbell does not argue, that he 5 According to the government's brief, Campbell insisted on being presented as John Doe at the jury empanelment. Campbell does not contest this assertion. -8- objected to the reading of the John Doe Indictment during jury selection. The district court heard pretrial motions on November 29, 2011, the day before trial began. Towards the end of the hearing, defense counsel made an oral motion to have this indictment amended to United States of America versus Theotis Leonard, arguing that presenting his client as John Doe to the jury would be prejudicial. After some back and forth the trial judge declined to amend the indictment. He did, however, invite the parties to agree on one name to present to the jury at trial and instructed them to make a decision by the next morning. When they reconvened in the morning, defense counsel proposed using the name Rashide Campbell. Defense counsel further agreed it would be appropriate to refer to Campbell as Tony at trial: He is still a/k/a Tony as far as I know and I think that's legitimate in terms of this case. That's what he was calling himself. The parties ultimately memorialized their agreement in a handwritten stipulation signed by defense counsel (Attorney William Maselli), the prosecutor (Attorney Daniel J. Perry), and Campbell himself setting forth the following: The parties hereby stipulate:
name Rashide Campbell a/k/a Tony will be used in these proceedings.
the aliases John Doe and Theotis Leonard also -9- are identical identifying names as Rashide Campbell a/k/a Tony for the purposes of this case.6 Almost immediately after entering into this stipulation, defense counsel made an oral motion to dismiss this case at this time based upon the Government's re-indictment under this name John Doe. Because no written motion was filed, we set forth counsel's presentation and the trial judge's ruling in their entirety: Mr. Maselli: But one other issue, we've been also discussing the impact of John Doe and we have maybe different views of it, but I'm making an oral motion to dismiss this case at this time based upon the Government's re- indictment under this name John Doe. Again, as I stated in the prior conference, the only reason it wasn't challenged in writing at the time the indictment came down is the Government represented to me that they had determined that he was not Rashide Campbell and I accepted that representation on face value. Now, it turns out as of yesterday, learning that there was one witness who--it was within the last couple of days, I don't remember when we first discussed it, but there is one witness who saw a photo of the defendant and said that's not Rashide Campbell. Now, the Government even has apparently grave concerns as to whether this witness is telling the truth. 6 We pause here to note it would have been helpful had the government mentioned in its brief that the parties' stipulation went beyond referring to Campbell as Rashide Campbell at trial and permitted him to be referred to as Tony. As this was not brought to our attention, the Court was required to comb through the trial transcripts and exhibits in order to discover this important fact. -10- I don't think that's a sufficient basis to change an indictment already brought before this court of Rashide Campbell, and the entire case has gone through as Rashide Campbell, to John Doe and then to place it before the jury at the last moment as John Doe and we are in a situation where -- The Court: I thought we agreed it wasn't going to be placed in front of the jury as John Doe. It was going to be placed in front of the jury as Rashide Campbell. Mr. Maselli: I mean at the jury selection, You Honor, I apologize. So he was John Doe at the jury selection. The Court: Well, you people should have discussed this a long time ago and dealt with this issue. Your motion to dismiss is denied. Too little too late. Although Campbell had made an oral motion to amend the indictment to Theotis Leonard less than twenty-four hours earlier, from the tenor of this argument he now seemed to be taking the position, without reference to any authority, that the John Doe Indictment never should have issued in the first place. That the trial judge did not solicit argument from the government and made a relatively terse denial of this oral motion is hardly surprising in light of the late hour and the fact that the parties had just agreed to use the names Rashide Campbell or Tony exclusively at trial. Yet, even this clear ruling from the court did not quiet the back and forth over Campbell's identity. The prosecutor took one last opportunity to comment: Mr. Perry: Only other thing, Your Honor, is as Mr. Maselli states, this case was read to -11- the jury [at jury selection] as U.S. v. John Doe. Mr. Maselli introduced his client as John Doe. I do want to raise that to the Court in that now they're going to hear the case is U.S. v. Rashide Campbell. The Court: They don't remember it. They're going to follow my instructions. Following this colloquy, the trial judge marked the handwritten stipulation as Exhibit 6 for identification purposes only, reminded both parties that Campbell was only to be referred to consistent with this agreement, and had Campbell acknowledge his signature on the stipulation. The preliminary matters finally disposed of, the jury was brought into the courtroom and trial began. From that point forward, and contrary to what he asserts in his brief, Campbell was referred to as either Campbell, Tony, or as the defendant. The names John Doe and Theotis Leonard were never mentioned at trial, nor did the prosecutor comment on Campbell's use of multiple names or suggest to the jury that the only people who use aliases are those with something to hide. Furthermore, the John Doe Indictment marked as an exhibit at trial and provided to the jury for its use during deliberations was redacted to remove the names John Doe, Tony, and Theotis Leonard, such that it identified Campbell as Rashide Campbell only. As promised, the trial judge instructed the jury that it was to base its verdict only upon the evidence at trial, which consisted of sworn witness testimony and the exhibits received into -12- evidence. The jury was also instructed that the indictment is no evidence whatsoever of his guilt. 1. Motion to Dismiss Having laid the groundwork, we turn our attention to Campbell's arguments. Although Campbell's brief is by no means a model of clarity, having studied the submission we surmise that he takes issue with the denial of his day-of-trial motion to dismiss the John Doe Indictment.7 Campbell's argument goes something like this: [t]he trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the indictment to read as 'United States of America v. John Doe, a/k/a Tony a/k/a Rashide Campbell a/k/a Theotis Leonard.' As such, he was unfairly prejudiced by the multiple names on the John Doe Indictment because, [a]lthough this was never directly brought to 7 This must be the case, as the only other pretrial motion regarding aliases--one not raised on appeal--was his day-beforetrial motion to amend the John Doe Indictment to name as the defendant, Theotis Leonard. Puzzlingly, Campbell also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused [t]o [a]mend [t]he Government's [i]ndictment [a]nd [i]dentify Mr. Campbell [a]s [o]nly 'Rashide Campbell.' The record fails to provide any factual basis whatsoever for this argument. Such a motion was simply never made. What really happened is that, on the day before trial, defense counsel made an oral motion to have this indictment [i.e., the John Doe Indictment] amended to United States of America versus Theotis Leonard. After briefly hearing arguments from each side, the trial judge ruled [t]he indictment stands as it is, but invited the parties to come to an agreement on a single name to be used at trial. Not only did Campbell fail to object to this invitation, but the parties in fact took the judge up on it, stipulating the next morning to use the name Rashide Campbell. As Campbell neither objected to this procedure at trial nor briefed it on appeal, we need concern ourselves no further with Campbell's request to amend the John Doe Indictment. -13- the jury's attention, it is conceivable that the jury noticed the numerous instances in which Mr. Campbell's name was changed. Then, after speculating that the jury became aware of his use of aliases, Campbell further supposes he was unfairly prejudiced by the use of various names throughout the jury selection, the multiple indictments, and the trial. From the tone of its brief, it appears the government is not exactly sure what Campbell is attempting to argue with respect to his aliases. Yet whatever his gripe, the government says the blame for Campbell's woes lays squarely at his own feet. Campbell, the government informs us, insisted during pre-trial proceedings on presenting himself initially as Theotis Leonard and then to the jury as Doe. In sum, the government urges us to reject Campbell's eleventh-hour objection to a situation of his own making, as in its view doing otherwise would allow Campbell to benefit from his deliberate attempts to conceal his identity.8 We note first that Campbell may have forfeited any objection to the propriety of the John Doe Indictment by waiting to raise it until the first day of trial. Cf. United States v. PérezGonzález, 445 F.3d 39, 44 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding the defendant forfeited objections to arrest warrant and post-arrest statements where he wait[ed] until the first day of trial to raise them in 8 The government further argues that Campbell's aliases were benign at any rate, such that the jury is not likely to have been prejudiced by them. -14- motion to suppress); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) (requiring a motion alleging a defect in the indictment to be raised before trial). But, while we also doubt that defense counsel adequately placed his objection to the John Doe Indictment before the trial judge, the trial judge nevertheless proceeded to rule on the request. We too, then, will charitably deem the motion to dismiss to have been properly raised before trial and review the trial