United States v. Askia Washington
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16395
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- ATF ran a "stash-house reverse sting" in Philadelphia: undercover agents and an informant created a fictional stash house allegedly holding 10 kg of cocaine; Washington joined a four-person crew that planned the robbery and was arrested during the operation.
- Washington was tried; jury convicted him on Hobbs Act robbery counts and drug conspiracy/attempt counts (jury found 5+ kg), acquitted on a § 924(c) firearm count; government had filed a § 851 notice of a prior drug felony, triggering a 20-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1).
- Codefendants pled guilty and received substantially lower sentences (ringleader got 180 months); Washington went to trial and received 264 months (240 months drug consecutive to 24 months robbery).
- Pretrial, Washington sought discovery into ATF stash-house policies and statistics alleging racial profiling/selective enforcement; District Court denied discovery under Armstrong/Bass and later produced a redacted ATF manual on eve of trial.
- Post-trial, Washington alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including counsel’s cross-examination that led to admission of Washington’s prior drug conviction); District Court held a hearing and denied relief. Washington appealed challenging counsel effectiveness, due-process application of mandatory minimums in reverse stings, and the denial of selective-enforcement discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Washington) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel based on cross-examination that elicited prior drug conviction | Trial counsel opened the door to prior-conviction evidence, undermining defense and causing prejudice | Evidence against Washington was overwhelming; any counsel error was not prejudicial | Denied relief: appellate court reviewed record, found no Strickland prejudice and exercised discretion to resolve on direct appeal |
| Due process challenge to mandatory minimum where drug quantity was fictitious and set by government | Application of § 841(b)(1) mandatory minimum is fundamentally unfair when government fabricated quantity in sting and defendant powerless to refute; amounts manipulated to increase sentence | Charging, jury verdict on quantity, and § 851 notice satisfied statute; government did not act to inflate sentence improperly | Denied relief: court held no outrageous conduct or sentencing-factor manipulation sufficient to invalidate mandatory minimum on these facts |
| Pretrial discovery for selective enforcement/racial profiling of ATF stash-house operations | Armstrong/Bass is inappropriate for selective-enforcement claims; request for ATF policies/statistics is necessary and should get relaxed discovery | Armstrong/Bass governs and defendant failed that demanding test; limited disclosure already provided | Vacated District Court discovery orders and remanded: court adopts a more flexible framework for selective-enforcement discovery allowing limited, measured inquiry (in camera review, agent testimony, limited disclosure) without lowering the substantive "clear evidence" standard for ultimate relief |
| Scope of remand and impact on conviction/sentence | Discovery denial was prejudicial and requires reconsideration; potential to affect indictment/sentence | Any discovery beyond produced manual would not change result; conviction stands | Remand limited to discovery issue only; conviction and sentence otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (discovery standard for selective prosecution)
- United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (reinforcing "some evidence" standard for discovery in selective prosecution claims)
- United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (recognizing rare "outrageous government conduct" basis to dismiss an indictment)
- United States v. Davis, 793 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. en banc — distinguished Armstrong/Bass for selective-enforcement claims and endorsed measured pretrial inquiries)
- United States v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264 (sentencing-factor-manipulation discussion)