U.S. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–4049.,09–4049.
• Citation: 632 F.3d 129
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Randolph WILLIAMS, a/k/a Red, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

632 F.3d 129

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Randolph WILLIAMS, a/k/a Red, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 09–4049.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Sept. 21, 2010.Decided: Jan. 21, 2011.

ARGUED: Andrew Mackenzie, Barrett & Mackenzie, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.Before GREGORY and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES C. DEVER III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge KEENAN joined. Judge DEVER wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

OPINION

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:

A jury convicted Randolph Williams of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin in contravention of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. Williams appeals his conviction because of a stipulation which was published to the jury over his objection. He argues that this error impinged on his Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const.Amend. VI. We agree and therefore vacate his conviction.

I.

On January 8, 2008, Williams was indicted by a grand jury for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin from September 25, 2007, to October 10, 2007 in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. Two co-defendants, Sabrina Hutchinson and Victor Jackson, were also indicted as members of the conspiracy. Subsequent to the indictment, Williams pled not guilty, charges were dropped against Sabrina Hutchinson, and Victor Jackson pled guilty.

On September 3, 2008, the district court held a hearing to discuss pretrial matters for Williams' trial. The Assistant United States Attorney informed the court that she wished to enter a stipulation regarding the testing of the drugs at issue. She advised the court that the “defendant refuses to sign the stipulation.” J.A. 11. Williams' defense attorney then asked the court if it “had[ ] any problem with [her] signing the stipulation over the objection of the defendant?” J.A. 11. The court allowed the defense attorney to sign the stipulation and it was read to the jury.

During the trial, the government presented its theory of the crime. According to the government, the package of heroin was shipped from drug producers in Panama to the Louisville International Airport in Kentucky where it was intercepted by law enforcement. From there, if it had not been intercepted, the package would have been shipped to Sabrina Hutchinson's house in Spartanburg, South Carolina where Victor Jackson would retrieve it, and then deliver the package to Williams. Williams, according to the government, planned to distribute the heroin thereafter.

In support of its theory the government introduced several pieces of evidence. First, the United States introduced the testimony of Officer Eric Murphy from the Customs and Border Protection Agency, who explained how the alleged heroin arrived from Panama and caught his attention. Officer Murphy subsequently conducted a field test which was positive for heroin.

Second, Victor Jackson, who was Williams' indicted codefendant, testified that he was asked by Williams to retrieve the package in exchange for $500. During cross examination it was revealed that Jackson initially lied to police about his identity and would likely have his sentence reduced based on his testimony.

Following this testimony, the government published the stipulation by reading it to the jury ¹:

United States of America v. Randolph Williams also known as Red, Criminal No 7:08–25, the Government and counsel for the defendant, Randolph Williams, that counsel being Lora Collins stipulate the following: that on October the 11th of the 2007 [sic] lieutenant Beth Rampey Vaughn a certified forensic chemist with the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office forensic laboratory located in Spartanburg, South Carolina, examined and analyzed the contents of the package addressed to Sabrina Hutchinson, 142 Westover Drive No. 5, Spartanburg, South Carolina, 29306 and seized by Eric Murphy of Customs and Border protection Louisville Kentucky, that the package was seized on October the 3rd of 2007 from the UPS sorting facility and submitted to forensic chemist Rampey Vaughn under ICE file No. GV13HE08GV0C1[ ], that forensic chemist Rampey Vaughn who has been qualified as an expert in the analysis of controlled substances in both state and federal courts within the District of South Carolina determined that this—that the package contained a total weight of 98.61—grams of heroin, a schedule I controlled substance. We do so stipulate, signed by Lora Collins, attorney for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Regan A. Pendleton in Greenville, South Carolina.J.A. 40–41. The government then introduced testimony by Officer Brian Duncan. He testified that he dressed as a UPS delivery man and delivered the package to Ms. Hutchinson's house in order to ensure that Victor Jackson retrieve the package. Next Special Agent Paul Criswell testified as to the content of an alleged confession by Williams in which he detailed the plan to retrieve and distribute the heroin. In cross-examination, the defense pointed out that despite the custodial nature of Williams' interrogation, no written statement was ever taken. Furthermore, the defense raised questions about whether Williams was under the influence of medication at the time of the interrogation. The government also called Investigator Matt Hutchins who verified much of Special Agent Criswell's testimony.

The defense called Williams to testify on his own behalf. Among other things, he testified that he was under the influence of the pain killer Percocet at the time of his interrogation by Investigator Hutchins and Special Agent Criswell. He also contradicted earlier statements regarding any admissions he allegedly made to law enforcement. Finally, the government called Sabrina Hutchinson who indicated that she did not know and had never spoken with Williams.

In its charge to the jury, the court indicated that “[w]hen the attorneys on both sides stipulate or agree to the existence of a fact ... you must, unless otherwise instructed, accept the stipulation as evidence and regard that fact as proved.” J.A. 97. The court listed the required elements as (1) “an agreement existed between two or more persons to possess with the intent to distribute heroin”; (2) “defendant knew of the conspiracy”; and (3) “defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the conspiracy.” J.A. 102.

During their deliberation, the jury returned several questions to the court including: “What amount of drugs does it take to qualify for distribution as opposed to self-use?” J.A. 109. The court replied by indicating that the jury should use common sense but that the more drugs there are, the more likely it is that there is an intent to distribute. The court then retrieved the stipulation, marked it as the court's exhibit no. 1, and sent it back with the jury. Later, the court gave the jury the so-called Allen charge to encourage them to reach a verdict and allowed them to go home for the night. The next morning, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The jury also found that Williams had intended to possess 98.61 grams of heroin.

Williams' sentencing guidelines were prepared relying on a determination that he intended to possess 98.61 grams of heroin. After disposing of some other objections, the court imposed a sentence of 78 months which was at the top of the guideline range. Williams timely filed a notice of appeal.

II.

This Court reviews evidentiary rulings implicating constitutional claims de novo. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 253 (4th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1312, 173 L.Ed.2d 584, (2009) (citing United States v. Rivera, 412 F.3d 562, 566 (4th Cir.2005)).

If we conclude that there is a constitutional violation, then evidentiary rulings of this kind are subject to harmless error review. Erroneously admitted evidence is harmless if a reviewing court is able to determine that “the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 256 (4th Cir.2008) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).

III.

A.

Both parties agree that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the stipulation into evidence over Williams' objection because it violated his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment:

Admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation. To be sure, the Clause's ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Though neither party cites to a case from the Fourth Circuit, both parties cite relevant cases from outside of this Circuit which have held that where a defendant objects to the introduction of a stipulation that is nonetheless introduced at trial, a district court abuses its discretion. See e.g. Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146, 1155 (10th Cir.1999).

A majority of our sister circuits have held that “a defendant's attorney can waive his client's Sixth Amendment right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorney's decision, and so long as it can be said that the attorney's decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy.” United States v. Cooper, 243 F.3d 411, 418 (7th Cir.2001) (...