United States v. Bourne
12-4256-cr
| 2d Cir. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Victor D’Acosta Bourne was convicted on nine felony counts relating to drug trafficking and money laundering and appealed the district court judgment dated October 23, 2012.
- Key contested pretrial and trial events included the district court’s disqualification of Bourne’s chosen counsel due to potential conflicts arising from prior representation of a codefendant (Maria Alleyne) and continued advice to her after disqualification.
- Bourne challenged sufficiency of evidence for counts charging import-related mens rea under 21 U.S.C. § 959(a), arguing the government failed to prove knowledge or intent to import; the government relied on witness testimony about transshipment discussions and shipping-route knowledge.
- He also raised objections to jury instructions (interpretation of § 959(a)), denial of a suppression motion (agents seized incriminating documents in Alleyne’s home allegedly after an improper protective sweep), and alleged prosecutorial comment during grand jury proceedings that purportedly tainted the indictment.
- At sentencing Bourne argued procedural and substantive unreasonableness, disputing consideration of acquitted conduct, certain factual findings, grouping calculations, and enhancements for gun possession and obstruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification of counsel | N/A (government defended disqualification) | Disqualification of Bourne’s counsel of choice was erroneous and infringed Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Court affirmed district court: disqualification within discretion due to potential/actual conflict from prior representation and continued contact with codefendant |
| Sufficiency of evidence (counts 6–8) | Government: evidence (witness Hanson, shipping testimony) supported required mens rea/knowledge of importation | Bourne: insufficient proof of intent/knowledge under § 959(a) | Affirmed: count 8 charged § 841(a)(1) (no import element); counts 6–7 supported by record and witness testimony |
| Jury instructions re § 959(a) | Bourne: instructions misstated law by not requiring intent to distribute within the U.S. | Government: instructions correct (and defendant may have waived objection) | Affirmed: instructions correctly tracked § 959(a) — focus on knowledge of unlawful importation, not distribution inside U.S. |
| Motion to suppress (plain-view seizure) | Bourne: evidence seized during illegal protective sweep of Alleyne’s home — suppression required | Government: Bourne lacks standing; agents had Alleyne’s consent and items were in plain view | Affirmed: factual findings not clearly erroneous; plain-view exception applied given consented entry and incriminating documents in plain sight |
| Grand jury interference | Bourne: prosecutor’s comment improperly influenced the grand jury, tainting the indictment | Government: no substantial influence; appellate waiver arguments | Affirmed: no plain error; record lacks evidence the comment substantially influenced the indictment |
| Sentencing reasonableness | Bourne: procedural errors (relying on acquitted conduct, factual findings, grouping, enhancements) and substantive excessiveness for related counts | Government: district court acted within discretion; relied on permissible factual findings and Guidelines analysis | Affirmed: procedural and substantive reasonableness upheld; findings not clearly erroneous and sentence within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.) (district court may disqualify counsel for actual or potentially serious conflicts)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Romero-Padilla, 583 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.) (interpretation of § 959(a) — knowledge/intention re: unlawful importation)
- United States v. Delva, 858 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (plain-view seizure principles)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view seizure doctrine articulated)
- United States v. Bershchansky, 788 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for suppression factual findings)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (use of acquitted conduct at sentencing permissible under certain standards)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir.) (procedural reasonableness and consideration of conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (standards for substantive unreasonableness of sentence)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (standard for overturning an indictment for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Dinler v. City of New York (In re City of New York), 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir.) (discussion of ‘‘abuse of discretion’’ as term of art)