United States v. Cecil Anthony Dortch
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19080
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Dortch was charged by three-count indictment: Count 1 felon in possession of firearms (Taurus .45 pistol and Arminius revolver) with interstate commerce nexus and listing seven prior felonies; Count 2 possession with intent to distribute marijuana; Count 3 use or carrying of firearms during drug trafficking.
- At trial, seven prior felonies were narrowed by the court; three cocaine convictions from 1995, 2001, 2003 were admitted, others were excluded as too old or prejudicial.
- Evidence showed firearms in Dortch’s residence including the Taurus pistol and Arminius revolver in the front bedroom, with Dortch’s DNA on one gun and Dortch admitting he lived in the bedroom.
- Additional drug-distribution evidence included marijuana, scales, bags, and testimony of Milanesi about purchases from Dortch; Dortch’s sister testified about Dortch’s exclusive use of the front bedroom.
- The district court instructed on a generic firearm and a generic firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking; the jury received an unredacted indictment copy containing prior convictions.
- Dortch moved for mistrial after learning of the unredacted indictment; the district court denied the motion, reliance on limiting instructions and overwhelming evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unredacted indictment to the jury was reversible error | Dortch argues admitted prejudice from prior convictions. | Government concedes error but claims harmlessness given strong guilt evidence. | Harmless error; no reversal given strong evidence and limiting instructions. |
| Constructive amendment of indictment by jury instruction | Indictment’s scope broadened by instructing on any firearm, not the specific two. | No plain error; instruction did not clearly enlarge the charged elements. | No plain error; argument fails under plain-error review. |
| Admissibility of judgments of acquittal on related state charges | Acquittal judgments should be admissible to impeach or corroborate. | Judgments of acquittal are hearsay and inadmissible. | Admissibility rejected; judgments of acquittal are hearsay. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) (review of extrinsic evidence and harmlessness under abuse of discretion standard)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (juror exposure to extraneous evidence; harmlessness burden shift)
- United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 1997) (indictment and trial conduct—presumption of following court instructions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard requires obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Williams, 334 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (scope of elements in § 924(c); sentencing elements not needing indictment specificity)
- United States v. Coleman, 552 F.3d 853 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (unredacted indictment read to venire; discusses per se reversible error in some contexts)
- United States v. Leichtman, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1991) (constructive amendment debate on aiming at ‘a firearm’ vs. specific firearm)