United States v. Chaka Fattah, Jr.
858 F.3d 801
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In 2012 FBI agents executed sealed search warrants at Chaka Fattah, Jr.’s home and office; press learned of the searches and reported them pre-indictment.
- At trial an FBI agent admitted he had disclosed confidential investigative information to a reporter in exchange for leads. The Government conceded the disclosures were wrongful.
- Fattah was indicted in 2014 on 23 counts (bank fraud, false statements to obtain loans, tax offenses, theft from a federally-funded program, wire fraud, aiding and abetting); he proceeded pro se and was convicted on all but one count.
- Fattah claimed the agent’s pre‑indictment leaks cost him his DVHS employment, reducing pre‑indictment income he would have used to hire counsel of his choice (Sixth Amendment) and that the disclosures were so outrageous as to violate due process (Fifth Amendment).
- The District Court denied relief; on appeal the Third Circuit concluded waiver need not be enforced given the timing of the agent’s testimony and proceeded to the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment — denial of right to counsel of choice | FBI leaks led to news stories → DVHS terminated Fattah → lost $432,000+ income → could not afford chosen counsel | Government lacked any purpose to interfere with counsel; Fattah’s own records/statements show he planned to leave DVHS, so income-loss claim is speculative | Denied — claim speculative, contradicted by record; no entitlement to evidentiary hearing or relief |
| Fifth Amendment — outrageous government conduct | Agent’s disclosures (including tax return info) were wrongful and shocking to conscience, barring conviction | Although wrongful, disclosures did not reach the extreme outrageousness required to bar prosecution; other remedies (criminal/professional) exist | Denied — conduct, while improper, not so egregious as to violate due process |
| Sufficiency of indictment | Some counts (e.g., bank fraud, wire fraud, §1014 counts) amount only to breach of contract or noncriminal conduct | Indictment alleges knowing false representations and pleads elements sufficiently; questions of intent for jury | Denied — indictment facially sufficient; evidence supported intent findings |
| Constructive amendment / improper joinder / overbroad warrants | Govt introduced uncharged facts/evidence, joined disparate offenses, and warrants seized records beyond particularity | Evidence was admissible background or 404(b); counts were similar/interrelated; warrants were particular enough for complex financial scheme | Denied — no constructive amendment; joinder proper; warrants sufficiently particular |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.) (pre‑indictment government interference with payment of legal fees can implicate Sixth Amendment)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (right to counsel of one’s choice is fundamental)
- Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) (Sixth Amendment protects the ability to obtain counsel using legitimate, untainted assets)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (due process bars convictions where government conduct is outrageously coercive or creates crime)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (example of conscience‑shocking police conduct violating due process)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence — review in light most favorable to the prosecution)
- United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir.) (government created crime by furnishing expertise; rare successful outrageous‑conduct due process claim)