United States v. Alexander Campbell
963 F.3d 309
4th Cir.2020Background:
- In December 2011, 19-year-old J.L. died of a heroin overdose after purchasing heroin from Antoine Washington; Washington continued selling and advertising his product thereafter.
- Washington, Alexander Campbell, Antonio Shropshire, Glen Kyle Wells, and others ran a multi-year heroin-distribution conspiracy around Baltimore (2010–2016); law enforcement indicted and tried them together.
- Evidence at a three‑week trial included customer testimony, recorded calls, an undercover buy, and testimony from former Baltimore officers (Momodu Gondo and Jemell Rayam) who aided the ring and described a 2015 home‑invasion robbery carried out at Washington’s request.
- The jury convicted all defendants of the conspiracy and related substantive counts; Washington was also convicted of distributing heroin resulting in J.L.’s death.
- Sentences: Washington 264 months; Shropshire 300 months; Campbell and Wells 188 months.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of medical expert testimony on cause of death (Washington) | Expert testimony that heroin was the cause of death was admissible and helpful to jurors | Dr. Southall’s "but‑for" causation testimony was an improper legal conclusion and unduly prejudicial | Admitted; Rule 704 permits ultimate‑issue opinions and Rule 702 allows medical causation testimony as helpful; "but‑for" language was vernacular, not an improper legal conclusion |
| Jury instructions on causation for distribution resulting in death (Washington) | District court instructions insufficiently explained Burrage’s multi‑sufficient‑causes exception; requested special instructions to emphasize government burden | Existing instructions already required but‑for causation; Burrage’s special rule was inapplicable | Denied; court’s instructions adequately covered but‑for causation and Burrage did not require the requested language |
| Admission of evidence about the 2015 home‑invasion robbery (Wells) | The robbery was propensity evidence barred by Rule 404(b) | The robbery was an act in furtherance of the charged conspiracy and thus admissible | Admitted; acts committed in furtherance of a conspiracy are not 404(b) "other acts" evidence |
| Joinder and severance (Shropshire) | Trial should be severed because Washington alone was charged with distribution resulting in death and that evidence would prejudice Shropshire | Joint trial proper because defendants were alleged co‑conspirators and limiting instructions mitigate spillover | Denied; joinder proper under Rule 8(b), severance not warranted absent a strong showing of prejudice; limiting instructions sufficed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (Shropshire) | Counsel failed to protect Sixth Amendment rights after alleged removal of jail‑cell documents | Record does not conclusively show ineffective assistance; issue was not litigated below | Not reached on the merits; record insufficiently developed to raise claim on direct appeal |
| Motion for mistrial after display of mug shots (Campbell) | Photographs prejudiced jury; mistrial required | Photos displayed briefly, court excluded exhibit and gave curative instruction | Denied; display was fleeting, curative instruction given, and no extraordinary prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (but‑for causation rule and the multi‑sufficient‑causes exception)
- United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2002) (Rule 704 and the ultimate‑issue doctrine)
- United States v. Chikvashvili, 859 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2017) (expert medical causation testimony admissible)
- United States v. Alvarado, 816 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming expert testimony that without heroin the victim would not have died)
- United States v. Krieger, 628 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2010) (expert identified which drug was the but‑for cause)
- In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II) MDL No. 2502, 892 F.3d 624 (4th Cir. 2018) (need for expert testimony to establish drug causation)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (limiting instructions can cure prejudice from joinder)
- United States v. Palacios, 677 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2012) (acts in furtherance of a conspiracy are not governed by Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 1997) (mistrial denial standard)
- United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2006) (opinions stating legal conclusions are generally inadmissible)
- United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings)