United States v. Anthony Lamar
466 F. App'x 495
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lamar was indicted on Nov. 19, 2009 for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500g+ of cocaine; conspiracy centered on Fred Lewis and involved the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area.
- FBI intercepted calls to and from Lewis’s phone from Oct. 2007 through mid-June 2008; Lamar, alias Rock, was a drug supplier to Lewis.
- Evidence supports three cocaine transactions with Lewis, but the May 7, 2008 sale is the central incident; a key intercepted call offered cocaine at about $23,000 per kilogram.
- Surveillance captured Lewis entering Lamar’s workplace (Beekman Variety Mart); additional intercepted calls arranged the purchase, delivery, and pricing of cocaine.
- Lamar was convicted after a multi-day trial, and the district court sentenced him to 156 months’ imprisonment and eight years’ supervised release.
- On appeal, Lamar challenges (i) admission of coconspirator statements without a pretrial ruling, (ii) Rule 404(b) admissibility/analysis of background evidence, and (iii) prosecutorial statements alleged to be improper vouching or bolstering; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of coconspirator statements without a pretrial determination | Lamar argues premissarily that a pretrial hearing was required | Lamar contends the district court’s conditional admission without a pretrial hearing was error | No error; district court made foundational findings and admitted statements subject to later proof of admissibility; retrial not warranted. |
| Rule 404(b) background evidence admissibility | Lamar asserts the marijuana-sales evidence was improper 404(b) evidence lacking proper analysis | Lamar’s marijuana-sales evidence was admissible as background, not character evidence | Admissible as background evidence; not a Rule 404(b) violation; no remand required. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct—vouching and bolstering | Lamar claims improper vouching/bolstering in closing and witness questioning | Prosecutorial remarks were isolated and not reversible error | No plain error; remarks were not clearly flagrant given strong evidence against Lamar; no new trial needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Conrad, 507 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2007) (foundation prerequisites for coconspirator statements)
- United States v. Maliszewski, 161 F.3d 992 (6th Cir. 1998) (foundation prerequisites for coconspirator statements)
- United States v. Vinson, 606 F.2d 149 (6th Cir. 1979) (trial court discretion in handling evidentiary issues)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 501 F.3d 630 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s coconspirator-hearsay ruling)
- United States v. Hardy, 228 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2000) (background evidence not usually Rule 404(b) subject)
- United States v. Paulino, 935 F.2d 739 (6th Cir.) (admissibility of prior drug deals to show conspiracy background)
- United States v. Reid, 625 F.3d 977 (6th Cir. 2010) (prosecutor may discuss plea obligations; not improper per se)
- United States v. Wells, 623 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010) (isolated prosecutorial remarks generally not reversible error)
- United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380 (6th Cir. 1994) (four-factor test for flagrant prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1999) (definition of improper vouching)
- United States v. Jackson, 473 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2007) (two-part test for prosecutorial misconduct; plain-error review)