United States v. Wadley
| Decision Date | 05 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-1917,19-3242,20-3189,19-2931 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AMIN WADLEY, AKA Jamil Abdul Amin White, AKA B, AKA Mean, Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. REGINALD WHITE, also known as Twin also known as T. Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TYRIK UPCHURCH, aka RED aka REDS aka REEKY, Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BASIL BEY, also known as BLACK also known as BAS, Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 4 2022
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No 2-17-cr-00208-001/006/007/008) District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge, and PRATTER, District Judge. [*]
An indictment charged ten defendants with engaging in a conspiracy to distribute heroin and crack cocaine from approximately April 2015 through March 2017. Four defendants -- Basil Bey, Tyrik Upchurch, Amin Wadley, and Reginald White -- proceeded to trial and were convicted by the jury. The defendants raise a number of issues on appeal to challenge their respective judgments, including the common issue of whether the District Court abused its discretion by allowing lay testimony and summary charts that purported to calculate the aggregate weights of drugs sold by each defendant during the conspiracy. For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgments of the District Court.
We write primarily for the parties and recite only the facts essential to our decision. In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") began investigating the distribution of heroin and crack cocaine in South Philadelphia. The FBI discovered that members of a conspiracy were selling large quantities of drugs in amounts that normally would not catch the attention of the FBI. The FBI focused primarily on two cell phones ("Phone One" and "Phone Two") that were used by a group to make such sales. Members of the conspiracy took "shifts" working the phones to sell drugs. Wadley Amended Appendix ("App.") 278, 327.[1] Based on call records obtained through a pen register, Phone One made and received 389, 432 calls and texts from April 1, 2014, to September 7, 2016. Ninety-six percent of those calls lasted less than one minute. The FBI also learned that members of the conspiracy packaged heroin in blue glassine bags and crack cocaine in small zip lock bags, neither with a stamp on the bag.
The FBI used a variety of methods to gather information during its investigation, including controlled buys through confidential informants, physical and video surveillance, pen registers, arrests by local police, [2] and search warrants.[3] Most relevant to this appeal, the FBI obtained a wiretap of Phone One from September 12, 2016 through Nov. 4, 2016. The FBI then wiretapped Phone Two after the defendants started using a new phone in November 2016. In total, the wiretaps lasted 76 days.
Given the length of the alleged conspiracy, the FBI used a portion of the wiretap to estimate the quantity of drugs each defendant was responsible for during the entire conspiracy. Special Agents kept track of drug sales made from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on 19 days of the wiretap, or 25% of the total wiretap. In situations where a caller failed to specify the quantity or type of drug they wanted (or both), Special Agents determined whether the caller was a repeat customer and, if so, whether the agents had historical information from previous calls about the drug and quantity that customer usually purchased.[4] The Special Agents used conservative estimates in these cases. And if a known customer called to arrange a meet up but did not specify the order, the agents attributed one packet of the customer's drug of choice. The Special Agents multiplied the number of packets sold during the analyzed calls by 0.3 grams for crack and 0.04 grams for heroin (the average weight of a packet based on the drugs recovered through controlled purchases and police seizures). Once the Special Agents calculated the weight of crack and heroin sold for the 19-day sample, they divided that number by 19 and estimated that the conspiracy sold an average of 4.418 grams of heroin and 12.55 grams of crack cocaine per day. The Government evaluated the number of days each defendant was a member of the conspiracy[5] and multiplied that number by the averages of crack and heroin sold to arrive at the quantity of crack and heroin that each defendant was responsible for during the conspiracy.
A grand jury charged the defendants with multiple counts related to conspiracy to distribute heroin and crack cocaine. Bey, Upchurch, Wadley, and White proceeded to trial. The Government sought to present the above-described methodology to prove the weight of drugs each defendant was responsible for during the conspiracy. The Government planned to elicit lay testimony from three Special Agents who developed the methodology and present a summary chart of the above-described calculations.
Before the Government presented this testimony and summary chart to the jury, the District Court conducted a lengthy hearing outside the presence of the jury. The purpose of the hearing was to provide information "relevant to the ability of Defense counsel to understand what the summary represents" and to ensure that the methodology utilized by the Special Agents was "very clear." App. 1571; 1573. The day before the hearing, the District Court provided questions it planned to ask the agents and invited the defense to submit additional questions. The Government and the District Court then questioned the three Special Agents at the hearing about how they calculated the estimated quantity of drugs sold by the defendants during the conspiracy, and the agents described their methodology.
The District Court determined that this evidence was admissible at the hearing. The trial proceeded, and the Government presented the Special Agents' testimony about their calculations as well as the summary charts. Before the jury deliberated, the District Court provided the following instruction:
The Government has shown you certain charts and summaries in order to help explain, illustrate, or summarize its interpretation of the evidence. These charts and summaries . . . were not admitted into evidence and they are not themselves proof of any facts. They are demonstrative aids and as such are not binding on you in any way. If you conclude that they represent a fair and reasonable interpretation of the evidence you have heard, you may consider them to aid your deliberations. If you conclude they are not a fair and reasonable interpretation of the evidence you have heard, you should disregard them. Once again, in every case it is for you, the jurors, to decide the facts.
App. 2195-96. The District Court further instructed the jury that the "opinions of [the Special Agents] should receive whatever weight you think is appropriate given all the other evidence" and that the jurors "might find [the agents' opinions] helpful" or might be "equally capable of understanding" the evidence on their own. App. 2182-83.
The jury convicted all defendants of all counts. The jury then answered special interrogatories and determined that Bey, Upchurch, and White were each responsible for the sale of at least 280 grams of crack cocaine and at least 100 grams of heroin, and Wadley was responsible for at least 28 grams of crack cocaine and at least 100 grams of heroin.[6] All four defendants timely appealed.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review a district court's decision regarding the admissibility of evidence, including the claim that the District Court admitted lay opinion testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 701(c), for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ayala, 917 F.3d 752, 760 (3d Cir. 2019); United States v. Shaw, 891 F.3d 441, 453 (3d Cir. 2018). Under our abuse of discretion review, we will overturn a trial court's evidentiary ruling only if the "decision is 'arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable'- in short, where 'no reasonable person would adopt the district court's view.'" United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233, 239 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196, 214 (3d Cir. 2009)). But to the extent our ruling is based on an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, our review is plenary. United States v. Georgiou, 777 F.3d 125, 143 (3d Cir. 2015).
The defendants argue that the District Court abused its discretion by allowing the Government to present lay opinion testimony and summary charts purporting to calculate the aggregate weights of drugs sold by each defendant during the conspiracy. We disagree.
Rule 701 permits lay witnesses to testify to the extent that their opinions are "(a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." Fed.R.Evid. 701. We have held that "Rule 701 means that a witness is only permitted to give her opinion or interpretation of an event when she has some personal knowledge of that incident." United States v. Fulton, 837 F.3d 281, 291 (3d Cir. 2016). Lay witnesses may not opine concerning what conclusions to draw from the facts such that the testimony "usurps the jury's role as fact finder," or offer an opinion which the witness is in no "better position than the jurors to form." Id. at 291-92. Rule 701 ensures that "a p...
To continue reading
Request your trial