United States v. Claxton
| Decision Date | 18 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–3933.,12–3933. |
| Citation | 766 F.3d 280 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Craig CLAXTON, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Susan B. Moorehead, Esq., (Argued), Smock & Moorehead, for Appellant.
Nelson L. Jones, Esq., (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, St. Thomas, VI, for Appellee.
Before: FISHER, COWEN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Craig Claxton appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine from 1999 to 2005, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The allegations against Claxton and several co-defendants stem from a wide-ranging drug conspiracy involving the importation of large quantities of cocaine from the British Virgin Islands to the Territory of the Virgin Islands and ultimately to the United States mainland. Claxton raises five challenges to various aspects of the proceedings in the District Court. We will affirm his conviction and sentence.
This case has a lengthy history involving several co-defendants and multiple appearances before this Court. The case commenced on December 19, 2006, when a federal grand jury returned a fourteen-count indictment charging Claxton in Count One 1 with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine between 1999 and 2005, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). A warrant was issued that day for Claxton's arrest.
The first jury trial commenced on September 5, 2007 without Claxton's participation because he had not yet been arrested. Two of Claxton's co-defendants were found guilty during the first trial, and a mistrial was declared as to the remaining co-defendants. Prior to retrial, Swann and Mark appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss the indictment and Mark filed a motion for a stay of the trial. We granted the motion to stay on January 22, 2008, and ultimately affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. United States v. Mark, 284 Fed.Appx. 970 (3d Cir.2008). We denieda petition for rehearing en banc on August 19, 2008.
While the appeal was pending, Claxton was arrested on April 23, 2008 in Orlando, Florida. He waived his right to a removal hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(c)(2), and was ordered transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands on April 25, 2008. On that date he was transported to Guaynabo MDC in Puerto Rico, where he was held until the transfer to the Virgin Islands was completed on July 16, 2008. Claxton was arraigned on July 21, 2008, at which time he entered a plea of not guilty. The District Court ordered his continued detention that same day.
Claxton moved to dismiss the charge against him on October 23, 2009 on the grounds that the proceedings violated both the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (“STA”). At a motions hearing held on March 23, 2010, the District Court denied the motion for relief with respect to the Sixth Amendment, but declined to hear argument on the STA, noting that it would render a written decision based upon the parties' submissions. A review of the record reveals that the District Court never entered a written opinion. Claxton renewed his STA motion on May 20, 2010, which the District Court denied prior to trial.
Claxton also joined in a motion to continue the trial based upon pre-trial publicity on May 14, 2010. The moving defendants objected to having the trial commence two weeks after the completion of a racketeering trial involving Gelean Mark and Police Officer Jerome Blyden (the “Mark/Blyden trial”). That case involved charges of drug dealing, gambling, and dog fighting, and featured the testimony of three cooperating witnesses: James Springette, Elton Turnbull, and Glenson Isaac. Each of those witnesses would ultimately testify in Claxton's case. The motion argued that prejudice stemmed from media reports about the Mark/Blyden trial, even though Mark was ultimately dismissed as a defendant in Claxton's case on May 24, 2010. Counsel for the moving defendants specifically referenced an organizational chart used in the Mark/Blyden trial that was broadcast on a news station and had Claxton's name on it. The District Court denied the motion, stating:
In the Court's view, voir dire will address the concerns and ensure that we have a jury that can be fair and impartial. Since the touchstone is not whether someone has read something or heard something, but whether they can maintain fairness and impartiality.
I know there has been some concern because Mr. Mark was on trial a few weeks ago with this court. Significantly he is no longer on trial in this court. Also, to the extent that there was publicity, it seems that there was publicity with respect to Mr. Mark. If there was some spillover with respect to other defendants, as counsel indicated this morning ... the Court will try to address those concerns during voir dire.
App. at 206–07. The defendants also objected to selecting a jury from the same panel of jurors used to select a jury in the Mark/Blyden trial.
Claxton's trial began on May 24, 2010. During voir dire, the District Court inquired into, among other things, whether potential jurors had read or heard anything about the case involving the defendants. Only one juror had. The District Court excused that juror for cause along with another juror who participated in voir dire in the Mark trial.
The government presented the testimony of James Springette and Elton Turnbull in its case-in-chief. Springette testified that he had been involved in drug trafficking in the Virgin Islands prior to 1999 and that the alleged conspiracy in Claxton's case began in 1999. Turnbull testified that he managed the collection and distribution of the cocaine after it arrived in the United States. During his testimony, he made reference to numerous letters he had written to the United States Attorney's Offices (“USAO”) in North Carolina and the Virgin Islands, other federal law enforcement authorities in North Carolina, and the District Court.
Following Turnbull's direct examination, Claxton and his co-defendants requested copies of those letters. The Virgin Islands USAO provided the defendants with four letters written by Turnbull the next day. After further review, the North Carolina USAO admitted that they had inadvertently overlooked a file containing letters written by Turnbull and immediately faxed those documents to the Virgin Islands USAO. The letters were provided to the defendants on the evening of May 25, 2010, and the corresponding envelopes were provided on May 27, 2010. Upon reviewing the letters, the District Court stated:
It seems to me with Mr. Turnbull ... there are three basic things he's concerned with. One is witness protection ... which is something I don't think you want the jury to be considering.... Two, he wants witness fees for his testimony ... [a]nd the other thing, which seems to be that he wants to get a Rule 35 ... But the first and the last thing I mentioned seem to be connected. He says, “I have testified and put myself in great peril ... I've lost my family ... I've lost this, I've lost that.” And so you are correct, he wants to get a Rule 35. But I haven't yet seen or heard anything from you that says that, [Y]ou're going to get to inquire and you're going to get plenty of leeway from the Court, given the timing of this disclosure. But I'm just pointing out to you that ... in every letter that I have recently just pulled up, it seems that he is saying [the same thing]. I'm not going to do anything that would cause you to prejudice your client's right to a fair defense. So you take as much time as you need [to prepare].
Trial Tr. May 27, 2010 (ECF No. 1137–2), at 106–17. The District Court ultimately permitted the defendants to cross examine Turnbull and Springette regarding the letters.
On May 26, 2010, Juror 125 informed the District Court that she had been approached by an individual who offered her $1,500 to say “nitroglycerin,” which she was told meant “not guilty.” Juror 125 testified that she knew the person by sight and told the District Court the person's full name. Juror 125 also revealed that she had discussed the event with her brother, sister, and Juror 159. The District Court inquired into these events with Jurors 125 and 159, and received assurances from both that they could remain fair and impartial. The defendants moved for removal of the two affected jurors, or, alternatively, for a mistrial. The District Court denied the motion for a mistrial, but did not rule on the motion to remove. It did, however, sequester the jury from that point forward. Jurors 125 and 159 ultimately did not participate in the jury's deliberations.
During trial the government presented evidence of thirty kilograms of cocaine seized in September 2003 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Cyril E. King Airport in St. Thomas. Isaac testified that the cocaine seized in September 2003 was part of the cocaine importation scheme, that some of that cocaine was intended to be delivered to him, and that Mark advised him of the seizure when it occurred. Isaac testified that after he received the drugs he relied upon female couriers to carry the drug proceeds back to the Virgin Islands. He identified Claxton as a member of the organization whose role was to pick up the female couriers from the airport to transport the money to Mark, after which Claxton would check them into a hotel and make sure the couriers were paid.
Claxton moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 at the close of the government's case. The District Court expressed concern about the sufficiency of the evidence against Claxton, but reserved judgment on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Judge v. United States
...under the four part test announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 293 (3d Cir.2014) ; United States v. Battis, 589 F.3d 673, 678 (3d Cir.2009). The four Barker factors are as follows: "the length of the delay, ......
-
United States v. Repak
...by a danger of ... unfair prejudice." Fed. R. Evid. 403. Rule 403"creates a presumption of admissibility." United States v. Claxton , 766 F.3d 280, 302 (3d Cir. 2014). "Evidence cannot be excluded under Rule 403 merely because its unfairly prejudicial effect is greater than its probative va......
-
United States v. Bailey
...be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”).67 United States v. Claxton , 766 F.3d 280, 302 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Archibald , 987 F.2d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted)).68 ......
-
State v. Smith
...the burden of production, namely, to provide the court with a reason for the preaccusatorial delay. See, e.g. , United States v. Claxton , 766 F.3d 280, 294–95 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding that the burden of showing reason for delay rests with government); United States v. Banks , 761 F.3d 1163,......
-
ICEBERG AHEAD: WHY COURTS SHOULD PRESUME BIAS IN CASES OF EXTRANEOUS JUROR CONTACTS.
...well-settled that any extra-record information of which a juror becomes aware is presumed prejudicial."). (259.) United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 299 (3d Cir. 2014) ("[A]ny private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matt......
-
Review Proceedings
...on remand required where district court failed to rule on defendant’s motion for new trial and acquittal was vacated); U.S. v. Claxton 766 F.3d 280, 290-91 (3d Cir. 2014) (same); U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); U.S. v. Miranda, 425 F.3d 953, 963 (11th Cir. 20......
-
Trials
...by local news media and juror emailed court that other jurors were “pretending to ‘live in a cave’” in order to serve); U.S. v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 298 (3d Cir. 2014) (no reversible error where court “took great pains during the voir dire” to remove potential jurors prejudiced by publici......