534 F. App'x 132
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Brown was convicted in Western District of Pennsylvania for bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and armed robbery under § 2113(d).
- Robbery occurred October 1, 2007 at S&T Bank in Ford City, PA; robbers wore Scream masks and stole $24,525.01.
- A van and a mask were found; witnesses described a vehicle near the scene with mirrors, plates, and a possible link to the van.
- Paragraph 7(c) of the probable cause affidavit stated witnesses met the Jetta with the van; this was later shown false.
- District Court suppressed evidence due to reckless disregard in § 7(c); Brown I affirmed the suppression ruling.
- Klingensmith later reported seeing the van and Jetta together; government sought to reopen suppression and did so, leading to a second suppression hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reopening suppression was proper | Brown contends reopening was improper. | Government argues reopening was reasonable and necessary. | Reopening affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the denial of the Franks challenge was correct | Brown argues the affidavit contained material falsehoods with reckless disregard. | Government contends 7(c) was not false given Klingensmith’s later information; not reckless. | No clear error; no reckless disregard found. |
| Admissibility of the bank audit records | Audit records are hearsay and/or Confrontation Clause issues apply. | Audit falls under Rule 803(6) and is non-testimonial; Confrontation Clause not implicated. | Audit properly admitted under Rule 803(6) and not violative of Confrontation Clause. |
| Use of bank audit for sentencing enhancement | Audit reliability supports an increase in loss amount for sentencing. | Hearsay in sentencing lacks Rules of Evidence; reliability shown via foundation. | No clear error; sentencing enhancement upheld. |
| Confrontation Clause in sentencing | Confrontation Clause may apply to testimonial evidence at sentencing. | Clause does not bar hearsay in sentencing; records were non-testimonial. | Not violated; admissibility sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638 (3d Cir. 2011) (reckless disregard/Franks and suppression reconsideration on remand)
- United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006) (materiality and recklessness in false statements for Franks)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (reckless disregard definition)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (Confrontation and non-testimonial nature of business records)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (foundation for testimonial vs non-testimonial evidence)
- United States v. Campbell, 295 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2002) (sentencing information reliability)
- United States v. Berry, 553 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2009) (reliability standard for sentencing information)
- United States v. Robinson, 482 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2007) (Confrontation Clause in sentencing context)