Antwan Buchanan v. United States
165 A.3d 297
D.C.2017Background
- Police arrested Antwan Buchanan after he dropped two bags while fleeing; officers recovered a plant-like substance, scales, bags, and paraphernalia. The substance field-tested positive for THC and was sent to the DEA lab; DEA chemist Nicole Edwards reported positive microscopic, GC/MS, and Duquenois–Levine (D–L) color tests. Buchanan was charged with possession with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia and convicted after a bench trial.
- Defense sought pretrial discovery under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(a)(1)(E) for DEA materials: laboratory SOPs, validation studies, maintenance/calibration logs, audit reports, training materials, and the chemist’s proficiency/performance records. The government produced the DEA-7 report, worksheets, chromatographs, photos, and a Laboratory Order but withheld other internal documents.
- Trial counsel stipulated to the admissibility of the DEA-7 (so the chemist did not testify) and did not call the defense expert at trial; counsel nevertheless argued at trial that the substance was marijuana but disputed its attribution to Buchanan.
- Defense expert Heather Harris submitted affidavits identifying potential flaws (e.g., possible sample contamination from using remaining portions of a test sample for the D–L test) and explaining why requested materials could reveal limitations or errors in DEA testing.
- The Superior Court compelled production in part (ordered Laboratory Order and some accreditation info) but denied or limited production of several categories. Buchanan appealed, arguing erroneous discovery rulings and seeking remand for in-camera review and prejudice findings.
Issues
| Issue | Buchanan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEA SOPs | Needed to evaluate methods, limitations, and to impeach chemist; expert affidavit showed materiality | Materials unduly burdensome or beyond Rule 16 scope; Laboratory Order sufficient | Court erred in not enforcing production; remand to produce SOPs (or clarify whether Laboratory Order contains them) |
| Training materials | Expert affidavit noted a possible procedural flaw; training materials could show systemic or individual errors | Conclusory assertions about fallibility insufficient | Material; trial court erred in denying production |
| Validation studies | Needed to show whether DEA’s methods were validated in that lab/equipment/setting | Defense didn’t show methods were unreliable or different from accepted techniques | Remand required for reconsideration; court failed to consider relevant expert explanations |
| Maintenance & calibration logs (GC/MS) | Logs relevant because instrument state affects test reliability; expert explained calibration/tune importance | Defense request was overbroad and did not show defect; Brady covers disclosure of known problems | Overbroad as framed, but trial court abused discretion by denying logs for GC/MS without adequate consideration; remand to reassess and limit scope |
| Audit reports | Audits could reveal systemic deficiencies; expert said production burden minimal | Unduly burdensome; Brady only requires disclosure of known problems | Reconsider temporally relevant audit reports on remand (court must assess relevance and burden) |
| Proficiency exams & performance evaluations | Material to chemist competence and trustworthiness; Privacy Act not a bar to discovery | Privacy Act barred disclosure | Court erred: Privacy Act does not create discovery privilege; these records are potentially material and subject to protective measures; order to produce for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. United States, 43 A.3d 276 (D.C. 2012) (standard of review for discovery rulings and construction of Rule 16)
- Ferguson v. United States, 866 A.2d 54 (D.C. 2005) (prejudice analysis for discovery nondisclosure; likelihood verdict would differ)
- United States v. Curtis, 755 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 2000) (defendant must make a threshold materiality showing; qualified chemist affidavit can justify probing DEA procedures)
- Jackson v. United States, 768 A.2d 580 (D.C. 2001) (limits on fishing expeditions; additional background documents require a reason to doubt disclosed analyses)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (standard for harmless error and grave doubt)