Court Opinion

ID: 9494176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:31:19.298967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:15.806002
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
With respect, I cannot concur in the denial of Mr. Anderson’s petition for rehearing because I believe that the Appren-di error in his case was not harmless. In rejecting Mr. Anderson’s petition, the court does not ask the correct question: The question is not what evidence Mr. Anderson produced; the question is whether the jury had evidence before it that would have more or less inevitably led it to convict Mr. Anderson of conspiring to produce more than 5 grams of methamphetamine. The court points to no such evidence because there is not any. The court points to evidence that was produced at sentencing, but that evidence was not before the jury and is thus entirely irrelevant to the pertinent inquiry.
It is important to keep in mind Appren-di has to do with the right to a jury trial, and while Apprendi errors can, of course, be harmless, the question that we must always ask is whether there is no reasonable doubt that the evidence before the jury would have led it to convict the defendant of conspiring to produce a certain amount of amphetamine. If there is no such doubt, then the error was harmless. The question is not whether we believe that there was evidence which, if produced, would have proved the required element. We must focus on the trial that the defendant actually got, not some trial that he would have gotten if the government had known about the rule announced in Ap-prendi.
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), is not, despite the court’s reliance on it, to the contrary. In Neder, the court specifically stated that the error was harmless because “the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence,” id. at 17, 119 S.Ct. 1827. Here, the evidence was not only not “overwhelming,” it was, as I have said, wholly nonexistent.
Because Mr. Anderson was denied his right to a jury trial, I would reverse the judgment of conviction. I therefore respectfully dissent.