United States v. Brandon Lavantis Hughes
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19961
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Nov 2011 an anonymous 911 caller reported a man (identified as "Brandon Baby" / Brandon Hughes) displayed a long silver revolver outside a bar; Sanford PD Officer Raimondo found Hughes on scene and later recovered a silver revolver from a nearby trash can.
- Fingerprints from the revolver were run through AFIS in Dec 2011 (no match) and again in Apr 2013, producing a match to Brandon Lavantis Hughes; ATF subsequently investigated and Hughes was indicted in Apr 2014 under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Pretrial: government orally moved for detention at a hearing on Apr 24, 2014; defense requested a continuance and the magistrate continued the detention hearing to Apr 29 (no on-the-record ends-of-justice findings). Apr 29 hearing granted detention; trial began Jun 23, 2014.
- At trial the court admitted the CAD (911) report over Confrontation Clause objection, admitted the firearm despite chain-of-custody gaps, overruled a Batson challenge to one peremptory strike, and gave a false-exculpatory-statements instruction; jury convicted Hughes and he was sentenced to 57 months.
- On appeal Hughes raised five claims: Speedy Trial Act violation (failure to exclude Apr 24–29), Batson error, evidentiary errors (CAD report and firearm), improper jury instruction on false exculpation, and facial/as-applied challenge to § 922(g).
Issues
| Issue | Hughes' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act: Apr 24–29 excludability | Apr 24–29 were continuance delay under §3161(h)(7)(A) and not excludable because magistrate made no on-the-record ends-of-justice finding | Oral government motion for detention on Apr 24 triggered automatic pretrial-motion exclusion under §3161(h)(1)(D); Apr 29 concluded the motion/hearing | Court: Affirmed exclusion. Oral pretrial motion stops the clock; (h)(7)(A) does not override (h)(1)(D); Bloate/Tinklenberg do not compel contrary result |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike | Strike of sole African-American juror was racially motivated; comparators show pretext | Proffered race-neutral reasons: felony burglary conviction, probation violation, inconsistent voir dire answers; reasonable trial strategy | Court: Affirmed. Proffered reasons race-neutral; no clear error in district court credibility finding |
| Admission of firearm (chain-of-custody) | Cumulative gaps in chain-of-custody required exclusion | Gaps go to weight, not admissibility; sufficient foundation laid | Court: Affirmed admission; chain gaps affect weight, not admissibility |
| Admission of CAD (911) report (Confrontation Clause) | 911 caller’s statements in CAD were testimonial; admission violated Crawford | CAD/911 statements were nontestimonial under Davis because primary purpose was to secure police assistance for an ongoing emergency | Court: Affirmed. CAD report statements nontestimonial and admissible |
| False-exculpatory-statements jury instruction | Instruction improper because Hughes invoked Fifth and did not testify; Brown allegedly limits inferences to testifying defendants | Govt: Jury may consider pretrial false statements as substantive evidence; precedent allows instruction | Court: Affirmed. No error; false exculpatory statements can be considered even if defendant did not testify; Brown not contrary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 314 F.3d 552 (11th Cir.) (Speedy Trial clock starts day after first appearance)
- United States v. Broadwater, 151 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (oral pretrial motions on the record trigger pretrial-motion delay)
- Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (pretrial-motion delay includes time until conclusion of hearing or receipt of submissions)
- Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (only filed motions—subject to limits—trigger automatic pretrial-motion exclusion; clarifies limits on (h)(1)(D))
- Tinklenberg v. United States, 563 U.S. 647 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (§3161(h)(1)(D) contains no causation requirement; filing of a motion stops the clock automatically)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (three-step test for racial discrimination in peremptory strikes)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause rule)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (911-call statements are nontestimonial when primary purpose is to enable police assistance for an ongoing emergency)
- United States v. Mathurin, 690 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Speedy Trial Act rulings)