United States v. Brown
18-2063-cr (L)
| 2d Cir. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- Jerome Brown was convicted in the S.D.N.Y. of felon-in-possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and two years’ supervised release; he appealed the conviction and the government cross-appealed the sentence.
- On appeal Brown challenged several trial rulings: (a) an expert (Inspector Hernandez) gave a long speculative answer on cross; (b) the court barred defense counsel from asking arresting officer Vargas whether Brown intended to distribute marijuana; (c) the court allowed the government to re-question defense witness Lakeisha Phillips and to interpret her testimony in closing; and (d) the court sustained objections limiting Brown’s rebuttal argument.
- Brown argued cumulative error from those rulings deprived him of a fair trial; the government defended the rulings as within the court’s discretion and not prejudicial.
- Brown also argued for vacatur under Rehaif v. United States (decided after his trial), asserting the government failed to prove he knew his felon status when possessing the gun; he raised this claim for the first time on appeal, so the court reviewed for plain error.
- The Second Circuit affirmed Brown’s conviction, concluding the evidentiary rulings did not individually or cumulatively warrant reversal, and declined to vacate under Rehaif because the Rehaif error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or reputation of judicial proceedings. The case was remanded for resentencing on separate government cross-appeal issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert’s long speculative answer (Hernandez) | Answer was harmless and court later elicited a clear, concise answer | The speculative answer prejudiced the defense and warranted reversal | No reversible error; probative value and lack of prejudice supported admission and corrective questioning by court |
| Barred question to Officer Vargas about distribution intent | Questions would have minimal probative value and risked confusion | Vargas should have been allowed to say whether he thought Brown intended to distribute marijuana | Court reasonably excluded the question — minimal probative value and risk of confusing issues |
| Government re-questioning and closing interpretation of witness Phillips | Re-questioning was a permissible continuation and closing offered a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous testimony | Re-questioning and closing distorted Phillips’s testimony and prejudiced Brown; rebuttal was improperly limited | No abuse of discretion: re-questioning was allowed, Brown had redirect, and prosecution’s interpretation was reasonable; objections to speculative rebuttal were properly sustained |
| Rehaif claim (knowledge-of-status) raised on appeal | Even if Rehaif error occurred, exclusion of prior-conviction evidence (at Brown’s request) meant the government would have proved knowledge; Rehaif error did not seriously affect fairness | Rehaif requires vacatur because government failed to prove Brown knew he was a felon when possessing the gun | Plain-error review: Rehaif error was clear but did not meet the fourth prong (serious effect on fairness/integrity); conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71 (2d Cir.) (1991) (standard for reversal based on prosecutorial remarks and effect on fair trial)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (government must prove defendant knew his status as a felon in § 922(g) prosecutions)
- United States v. Miller, 954 F.3d 551 (2d Cir.) (2020) (applying plain-error framework to Rehaif claims and declining vacatur where error did not seriously affect fairness)