United States v. Brown
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22197
7th Cir.2016Background
- Anthony Brown pled guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin; at sentencing the government sought a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for perjury.
- Brown had previously testified (under limited questioning and over his Fifth Amendment objection) at a suppression hearing in a separate case against Jimmie Sessom; Sessom later pled guilty and withdrew his suppression motion, so the presiding judge never made final credibility findings about Brown.
- At Sessom’s reopened suppression hearing Brown answered three multi-part questions with terse “no” responses; counsel was not permitted to follow up because of Brown’s Fifth Amendment concerns.
- At Brown’s sentencing Judge Guzmán found Brown not credible, credited the police testimony (agreeing with Judge Castillo’s preliminary impressions), and applied the two-level obstruction enhancement for willful false testimony.
- The court of appeals held that although § 3C1.1 could apply to testimony in a related proceeding, the district court lacked an adequate factual foundation to find willful, material falsity here given (1) the multi-element, ambiguous questions and terse answers and (2) reliance on another judge’s interim impressions rather than explicit findings.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated Brown’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement can be applied for alleged perjury in a separate but related suppression hearing | Brown obstructed justice by testifying falsely in Sessom’s hearing; enhancement applies | Brown’s answers were ambiguous, elicited under Fifth Amendment limits, and there was insufficient factual finding of willfulness or falsity | Enhancement can apply to related proceedings generally, but not on this record because factual basis for willfulness/falsity was inadequate |
| Whether district court made required perjury findings (falsity, willfulness, materiality) | The sentencing judge made the necessary findings and credited police testimony | Brown: findings relied on another judge’s preliminary impressions and ambiguous testimony without follow-up | Court: district judge stated findings but lacked sufficient independent, particularized factual basis; remand required |
| Whether reliance on another judge’s interim impressions suffices as factual basis for obstruction finding | Government: Judge Castillo’s preliminary credibility view supports enhancement | Brown: Castillo made no final credibility determination; interim impressions insufficient | Held: Interim impressions without findings are insufficient to support enhancement |
| Whether the error was harmless given below-guidelines sentence | Government: sentence below guidelines minimizes impact of error | Brown: error not harmless because enhancement altered guidelines and sentencing analysis | Held: Cannot say error was harmless; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (district court must make independent findings of perjury elements before applying obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Turner, 203 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2000) (district court should indicate it found falsity, willfulness, and materiality for perjury-based § 3C1.1)
- United States v. Gage, 183 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 1999) (§ 3C1.1 requires specific intent to obstruct, not confusion or faulty memory)
- Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) (questioner must pin witness to specific object of inquiry for perjury liability)
- United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986) (answers to fundamentally ambiguous questions may be legally insufficient to support perjury)
- United States v. Messino, 382 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2004) (obstruction enhancement can apply where defendant lied in co-defendants’ trial)