524 F. App'x 15
4th Cir.2013Background
- Barbee and Stewart were convicted after a jury trial of attempted interference with commerce by robbery and of carrying, using or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
- Barbee received 156 months and Stewart 360 months; both challenge convictions, not sentences.
- Stewart filed a pro se motion to dismiss his attorney for ineffective assistance nearly five months after verdict; district court allowed sentencing to proceed.
- Stewart argued the motion could be construed as a motion for a new trial, which would be untimely under Rule 33; the court addressed his arguments at sentencing.
- The district court admitted recordings of Stewart’s telephone conversations, testimony by a medicated witness, and evidence related to Stewart’s alleged attempts to secure an alibi.
- Barbee challenged testimonies linking him via Stewart’s statements and argued Bruton violations; the court considered Bruton and Confrontation Clause implications and upheld admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Stewart’s pro se motion | Stewart argues for ineffective assistance; motion should be treated as new-trial request. | District court should have construed it as a new-trial motion (Rule 33). | Untimely as a new trial motion; district court did not err. |
| Admission of Stewart’s telephone recordings | Recordings are hearsay and prejudicial; irregularly admitted. | Recordings are non-hearsay admissions by a party and context evidence. | Not reversible; admissible as non-hearsay and relevant under Rule 403. |
| Admission of alibi-related testimony under Rule 404(b) | Evidence of alibi efforts shows consciousness of guilt and intent. | Evidence is improper propensity evidence and/or lacks proper basis. | No reversible error; admissible under Rule 404(b) for relevant state-of-mind purposes. |
| Competency of medicated witness | Witness lacked personal knowledge due to medication. | Witness was incompetent to testify. | District court did not clearly err; witness competent after voir dire. |
| Bruton/Confrontation Clause concerns from Barbee | Statements implicating Barbee violate Confrontation Clause. | Co-defendant statements violate Bruton if facially incriminating. | No Bruton error; redaction and limiting instructions cure concerns; Confrontation Clause satisfied. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions | Evidence showed Barbee/Stewart committed the robbery and related crime. | Evidence insufficient to sustain convictions. | Sufficient evidence supports jury verdicts; substantial evidence standard met. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476 (4th Cir. 2003) (admissibility of recordings as party-admissions)
- Marsh v. Richardson, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction and limiting instruction under Bruton)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (admissibility with redaction and limiting instructions)
- United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1999) (redacted references to co-defendants admissible)
- United States v. Min, 704 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2013) (facial incrimination test for Bruton issues)
- United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (jury follow limiting instructions)
- United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard for preserved evidentiary rulings)