United States v. Alvin Ray, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16834

Background

Police used a confidential informant for a controlled buy at 9241 Genessee St.; a warrant was obtained and executed the next day, yielding marijuana (packaged for distribution), crack in a jacket, a loaded .380 handgun, an unloaded 12-gauge shotgun, and a loaded .22 rifle. Defendant Ray and his girlfriend were found in an upstairs bedroom; Ray later was arrested and interrogated at the station.
Ray admitted at trial to owning the marijuana and the shotgun (and disclosed a prior gun conviction); he testified the cocaine and .380 handgun belonged to a guest who left them in a closet after a party.
Indictment charged Ray with: felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). Jury convicted on all counts; Ray was sentenced to 84 months and appealed.
Pretrial motions: Franks hearing contesting the warrant (denied); motion to disclose CI identity (denied under Roviaro); motion to suppress post‑Miranda statements (denied without an evidentiary hearing); motion in limine to avoid using the term “felon” (denied in substance).
On appeal the court affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded on the admissibility of Ray’s post‑Miranda statements for an evidentiary hearing under Seibert/Elstad principles, while analyzing sufficiency of § 924(c) evidence as to each firearm.

Issues

Issue	Ray’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Use of term “felon” at trial and voir dire	Use of “felon/felon-in-possession” was unduly prejudicial and triggered implicit bias; requested neutral wording (e.g., “ineligible”)	Word was necessary to present element of § 922(g); stipulation entered and voir dire probative to screen bias	No abuse of discretion; use was permissible and any error harmless
Admission of prior felony under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)	Prior § 922(g) conviction should be excluded as prejudicial	Prior conviction admissible for impeachment where probative outweighs prejudice	Even if admission was error, no substantial prejudice shown; harmless
Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) (possession in furtherance)	Firearms found on premises did not have the required specific nexus to drug trafficking; shotgun unloaded and rifle distant from drugs	Handgun was loaded and found in same closet as distribution‑quantity crack; proximity/strategic location supports inference of furtherance	Reversed as to shotgun and .22 rifle (insufficient nexus); affirmed as to loaded .38 handgun (sufficient evidence of possession in furtherance)
Admissibility of post‑Miranda statements (pre‑Miranda threats / Seibert issue)	Statements were tainted by pre‑Miranda coercion (threat to arrest girlfriend/child’s mother) and by midstream Miranda delivery; suppression required	Statements were voluntary; post‑Miranda waiver valid; confession plausibly motivated by evidence seized rather than coercion	Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; district court must apply Seibert plurality multi‑factor test (adopted) and Elstad/Seibert progeny to determine admissibility

Key Cases Cited

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (government ordinarily must accept defendant’s stipulation to prior conviction to avoid unfair prejudice)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality) (multi‑factor test for evaluating effectiveness of midstream Miranda warnings)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (post‑warning confession may be admissible absent taint from pre‑warning admission; context matters)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant may challenge truthfulness of warrant affidavit and seek suppression if affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods)
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (informant privilege balanced against defendant’s need for disclosure)
United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001) (factors establishing when firearm is possessed "in furtherance of" drug trafficking)