Opinion ID: 2994162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robert Daniel Ward

Text: Ward challenges the district court’s rulings on his speedy trial motion and on several evidentiary motions. Ward further asserts that the district court erroneously limited the scope of his cross-examination of Donald Marini and erred in failing to sua sponte recuse itself. Finally, Ward contends that the government committed prejudicial error based on a comment made during closing argument.
Ward was arrested in Los Angeles, California on January 11, 1996 on charges stemming from a false application for a passport. While Ward was in custody on the passport charges, he was separately indicted in the Central District of California for narcotics violations based on his distribution of drugs to the Hill conspiracy. On October 11, 1996, a criminal complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging Ward with narcotics violations in connection with the Hill conspiracy. On October 18, 1996, the narcotics charges pending against Ward in the Central District of California were dismissed after prosecutors received the Illinois complaint and an accompanying bench warrant for Ward’s arrest. On October 21, 1996, Ward was sentenced to probation on the passport case. Ward, however, remained in custody in California based on the Illinois complaint and warrant. During November and December 1996, the United States Marshals Service for the Northern District of Illinois attempted to obtain custody of Ward through its normal channels. These attempts were complicated due to erroneous information received from the Marshals Service Prisoner Coordination Section that Ward could not be transported to Chicago because there were still charges pending against him in California. On January 7, 1997, Ward was brought before a magistrate judge in the Central District of California for an out-of-district process hearing at which time Ward asserted his speedy trial concerns. The magistrate noted Ward’s objections and stated that Ward would need to raise them in the Northern District of Illinois following his transfer. On February 11, 1997, the Marshals Service in the Northern District of Illinois was informed that Ward was being held in California pending the results of his tuberculosis test./1 Ward was cleared for transportation to Chicago on approximately February 26, 1997. He arrived in the Northern District of Illinois on either March 6 or 7 and made his first appearance before a judicial officer on March 13, 1997. On March 27, 1997, Ward filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the delay from the time his California charges were resolved until he was brought before a judicial officer in the Northern District of Illinois violated his right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3161 et seq., the Sixth Amendment, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b). The district court denied Ward’s motion. Ward’s jury trial began on November 6, 1997. By its express terms, the Speedy Trial Act does not apply in the present case. Under the Act, the trial of an accused must commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. 18 U.S.C. sec. 3161(c)(1). Ward challenges only the delay from the time charges were filed in the Northern District of Illinois until March 13, 1997, the day he first appeared before a judicial officer in the Northern District of Illinois. This time period is outside of the Speedy Trial Act, and because Ward does not allege any improper delay during the time his Speedy Trial Act clock was running, his Speedy Trial Act claim fails. The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is similar to, but separate from, the right created by the Speedy Trial Act. United States v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has established a four-factor balancing test to use in determining whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated. See Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972). Under this test, we must consider whether delay before trial was uncommonly long, whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for that delay, whether, in due course, the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and whether he suffered prejudice as the delay’s result. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651. In determining whether the delay was uncommonly long, we must consider the interval between accusation and trial, here over a year. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651. As the Supreme Court noted in Doggett, courts have generally found delays approaching one year to be presumptively prejudicial. Id. at 652 n.1. However, Ward challenges only the period between the return of the indictment and his first appearance in the Northern District of Illinois. Therefore, this factor does not weigh heavily toward either side. With respect to the second factor, Ward alleges that the delay was the result of a lack of diligence on the part of the prosecution. An examination of the record reveals that the delay resulted from miscommunication and the necessity of fulfilling certain prerequisites to transfer. Because this equates at the most to negligence on the part of the government, this factor must ’be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.’ United States v. Jackson, 542 F.2d 403, 407 (7th Cir. 1976) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531); see also Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657 (To be sure, to warrant granting relief, negligence unaccompanied by particularized trial prejudice must have lasted longer than negligence demonstrably causing such prejudice.). Ward contends that he fulfilled the third prong by asserting his speedy trial concerns immediately upon being brought before the magistrate in California for his out-of-district proceedings and by reasserting these concerns at his initial appearance in the Northern District of Illinois. However, Ward asserted his right to a speedy trial after much of the alleged improper delay had occurred. See United States v. Deleon, 710 F.2d 1218, 1222 (7th Cir. 1983). Ward knew of the charges against him and was represented by counsel from the time the California charges were resolved, yet he did nothing to assert his speedy trial right until his out-of-district process hearing. This factor does not weigh strongly in Ward’s favor. Finally, with respect to the prejudice prong, Ward does not allege that the delay impaired his ability to present his defense. Instead, Ward asserts that the stress and anxiety of being incarcerated and awaiting transportation to Chicago following the conclusion of the California cases in October 1996, were oppressive and increased the anxiety and concern on his behalf. While this is a proper factor to consider under the prejudice prong, it is insufficient to tip the scales in Ward’s favor. See Jackson, 542 F.2d at 409 (stating that general allegations of anxiety and concern constitute only minimal prejudice, especially when unenhanced by an impairment in presenting a defense). Weighing the four factors, we find that Ward’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated. We review the district court’s denial of Ward’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b) claim for abuse of discretion. Deleon, 710 F.2d at 1223. Under Rule 48(b), if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint. Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(b). Rule 48 is not circumscribed by the Sixth Amendment, Deleon, 710 F.2d at 1223; however, as the Eighth Circuit has recognized, it is driven by the same general considerations as the Sixth Amendment. United States v. DeLuna, 763 F.2d 897, 923 (8th Cir. 1985). Incorporating our analysis above and noting that there was no evidence of purposeful delay by the prosecution, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 48(b). See, e.g., United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 1989) (In general dismissal under Rule 48(b) is appropriate only where there is delay that is purposeful or oppressive. (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Ward first challenges the district court’s admission of testimony from two witnesses who were cooperating with the government, Donald Marini and Cameron Wright, regarding drug involvement with Ward prior to the charged conspiracy. Marini testified that he began selling and transporting drugs for Ward in approximately 1987 and continued to do so until he was arrested in 1993. Wright testified that he began purchasing cocaine from Ward when Wright was still in college and continued to purchase cocaine from Ward after his graduation from college in 1991. Eventually, Marini became a courier between Ward and the Hill operation in Chicago, and both Marini and Wright supervised couriers for Ward in connection with the Hill conspiracy. Ward objected to the testimony regarding prior drug transactions between himself and Marini and Ward. The district court overruled Ward’s objection, finding an inextricable link between the testimony and the charged offenses and stating that the testimony about prior drug relationships was highly relevant and probative. Ward argues that this ruling was erroneous under Rules 403 and 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence./2 We review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Akinrinade, 61 F.3d 1279, 1283 (7th Cir. 1995). Evidence of uncharged criminal activity is admissible if it is ’intricately related to the facts of the case’ before the court. United States v. Ramirez, 45 F.3d 1096, 1102 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Hargrove, 929 F.2d 316, 320 (7th Cir. 1991)). The admissibility of such evidence is limited only by Rule 403 and is not subject to the limiting requirements of Rule 404(b). Id. at 1102-03. In the present case, the testimony of Marini and Wright was intricately related to the charged conspiracy because it showed how the men’s relationship with Ward began, its basis, and structure, and how the relationship blossomed into the charged conspiracy. United States v. Zarnes, 33 F.3d 1454, 1469 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Diaz, 994 F.2d 393, 395 (7th Cir. 1993)). While it was not disputed that Ward knew Marini and Wright, the testimony regarding the prior drug transactions was integral to the complete story of the charged conspiracy in that it outlined the development of the relationship of trust between the men which led to their respective roles in the conspiracy. See Diaz, 994 F.2d at 395. Additionally, to further minimize the risk of unfair prejudice, the court gave limiting instructions during the testimony of both Marini and Wright, instructing the jury to consider the information regarding the prior activities only as background and with respect to the relationship which existed between the parties. It is clear that the probative value of the testimony outweighed any potential for unfair prejudice. Therefore, the testimony was properly admitted without regard to Rule 404(b)’s strictures, Zarnes, 33 F.3d at 1469, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it. Ward next argues that the district court erred in allowing evidence regarding Ward’s use of false identification in the name of Jeffery Eugene Palmer. Our review is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Aldaco, 201 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir. 2000). While Ward contends that the district court failed to meet the requirements for admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), the evidence was not offered under Rule 404(b) but rather as direct evidence to support the government’s allegations that Ward furthered the conspiracy by using aliases. Evidence was presented at trial that, on March 10, 1995, coconspirator William Ikey Hill was identified driving a black van registered to a Jeffery E. Palmer. Therefore, the false identification evidence was probative in that it showed a link between Ward and members of the Hill conspiracy. Furthermore, the district court limited the information that was admitted to reduce the risk of unfair prejudice to Ward. The jury was told only that Ward attempted to obtain a passport in the name of Jeffery Eugene Palmer and was not informed that Ward was arrested for this incident. Under these circumstances, the probative value of the false identification evidence outweighs any risk of unfair prejudice. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, and Ward’s claim fails./3
Ward asserts that the district court improperly restricted his defense by limiting the scope of his cross-examination of government witness Donald Marini. On cross-examination by Ward’s counsel, Marini testified that, as a result of his cooperation, federal prosecutors helped to clear a warrant against Marini based on unrelated charges in California state court. Defense counsel then sought to question Marini as to the nature of the state charges, attempting to elicit the fact that the charges were based on allegations of spousal and child abuse. The prosecutor objected, and following a sidebar, the court sustained the objection. The court noted that the information regarding the nature of the charges was highly inflammatory and irrelevant to the point being developed on cross-examination that Marini received a benefit for his cooperation. We review a district court ruling limiting cross-examination for abuse of discretion. Akinrinade, 61 F.3d at 1285. As we have noted, the sufficiency of cross- examination turns on whether the jury had sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal of the witness’ motive and bias. Akinrinade, 61 F.3d at 1285 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Ward argues that the district court’s ruling prevented him from inquiring as to the substantial benefit to Mr. Marini as bearing on bias, motive and credibility. However, the district court allowed Ward’s counsel to elicit the fact that Marini received a benefit in the form of dismissal of a state warrant in exchange for his cooperation in the federal prosecution. This was sufficient to allow the jury to make a discriminating appraisal of Marini’s motive and bias. Moreover, trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defense counsel from inquiring into the nature of the state charges.
Following Ward’s conviction but prior to sentencing, defense counsel became aware, through our opinion in In re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 1998), that Judge Kocoras’s son, John Kocoras, while acting as a third-year law student intern in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, had assisted in the trial of Gangster Disciple leader Larry Hoover. Acting under the authority of Northern District of Illinois General Rule 3.11, John Kocoras presented eight government witnesses during the Hoover trial. Judge Kocoras attended the trial to observe his son’s performance. One of the witnesses presented by John Kocoras testified regarding the seizure of $364,000 from William Hill and a member of the Gangster Disciple street gang. Testimony regarding this seizure was presented at Ward’s trial as well. This was the only overlap between evidence presented at the Hoover trial and that presented at Ward’s trial. Ward was convicted on December 19, 1997. Our Hatcher opinion was issued on May 13, 1998. Based on the information revealed in Hatcher, Ward moved for Judge Kocoras’s recusal at his sentencing hearing on June 18, 1998. Judge Kocoras denied the motion. On appeal, Ward argues that Judge Kocoras’s presence at the Hoover trial and his son’s involvement in Hoover’s prosecution created a conflict that required recusal or, at the very least, disclosure. Ward bases his argument in part on 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a) which requires a judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The government argues that Ward waived his sec. 455(a) claim by failing to pursue it prior to trial, citing United States v. Troxell, 887 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1989), United States v. Bonds, 847 F.2d 1233, 1241 (7th Cir. 1988), and United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1204-05 (7th Cir. 1985). The application of these cases to the present situation is debatable because, given the sequence of events outlined above, it is clear that Ward did not discover the information upon which he based his motion for recusal until after his trial was concluded. In the present case, we need not decide the waiver issue because Ward’s claim fails on its merits. Recusal is required under sec. 455(a) when a judge’s impartiality could be questioned by a reasonable, well-informed observer. Hatcher, 150 F.3d at 637 (citation omitted). The single evidentiary overlap between Ward’s case and the Hoover prosecution is insufficient to support even an appearance of impropriety. Ward’s case is easily distinguishable from Hatcher, in which both cases were part of one large prosecution of a continuing criminal enterprise and involved virtually the same offenses, committed by the same people. Id. at 638. The connection between Ward’s case and the Hoover prosecution was not significant enough to require recusal under sec. 455(a). To the extent that Ward asserts claims under 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(b)(1) and (b)(5), these arguments were fully addressed and rejected in Hatcher, id. at 635-37, and we will not reexamine them here. Recusal was not required.
Ward asserts that the prosecution committed reversible misconduct based on an alleged improper comment during its rebuttal closing argument. The comment at issue dealt with several photographs that law enforcement agents recovered from Ward when he was arrested on the passport charges. The photographs, which were presented at trial, were from Ward’s wedding and included shots of Donald Marini and Cameron Wright. When they were seized from Ward, the photos were cut or folded in such a way as to highlight Marini and Wright, both of whom Ward knew were cooperating with the government by this time. The prosecutor did not mention the photographs in his initial closing argument. In his closing argument, defense counsel addressed the photos, calling them a non-issue and arguing that the photos only went to show the conceded fact that Ward, Wright, and Marini knew one another. A second Assistant United States’ Attorney presented the government’s rebuttal argument. In response to defense counsel’s proffered explanation for the photos, she stated The photos that he [Ward] has with him, when he’s attempting to leave the country, apparently, Cameron Wright, Donald Marini, wedding pictures [sic]. [Defense counsel] would say, okay, it shows what good friends they are. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that you could draw from this an inference it’s something slightly more sinister. This man, he knows without a doubt--Robert Daniel Ward knows that this man is cooperating against him as of January of 1996. He knows that this man in the back seat of that car is cooperating against him in 1996. For the family album? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the evidence indicates that. Defense counsel objected, targeting his objection to any sinister inference and stating that there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s line of argument. The court responded, Well, she may argue and the jury may accept or reject any inferences to be drawn. She may argue. Ward raised the issue of prosecutorial misconduct again in a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. We review both the overruling of Ward’s objection and the denial of the motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Knox, 68 F.3d 990, 1000 (7th Cir. 1995). Our analysis to assess allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument is two-fold. United States v. Butler, 71 F.3d 243, 254 (7th Cir. 1995). The first step is to examine the disputed comment in isolation to determine whether it was in fact improper. Id. If the comment was improper, we must then examine the comment in light of the record as a whole to determine whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Id. As the district court recognized, in closing argument, a prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from the evidence that the jury has seen and heard. United States v. Waldemer, 50 F.3d 1379, 1383 (7th Cir. 1995). While innumerable factors may figure in the reasonableness calculation, the most obvious considerations are [w]hether the evidence bears logical and proximate connection to the point the prosecutor wishes to prove. Id. at 1384. It is also important to consider whether the prosecutor made the argument solely to inflame the passions of the jury. Id. Given the circumstances of the present case, the argument was logically and proximately connected to the evidence. Moreover, the argument was not made solely to inflame the jury but rather in response to an explanation offered by defense counsel in his closing argument. The prosecutor’s argument was not so unreasonable as to deprive Ward of a fair trial. See id. at 1385. Ward’s prosecutorial misconduct claim fails.