United States v. Charles Galloway
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6970
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Charles Galloway was convicted in Baltimore of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute ≥1 kg of heroin; sentenced to 292 months and appealed.
- DEA Special Agent Karas (San Diego-based investigation) and BPD Detective Sokolowski executed wiretaps on four of Galloway’s cell phones after investigation; intercepted calls and cooperating local drug traffickers provided the core evidence.
- Karas and Sokolowski testified both as fact witnesses (intercepted calls) and as experts on drug distribution and interpretation of coded language in narcotics communications.
- Galloway raised multiple challenges on appeal: ineffective assistance of initial retained counsel, restricted access to discovery while detained, sufficiency of affidavits supporting wiretap authorizations, and admissibility/management of expert testimony.
- The district court denied suppression and admitted agents as experts; it appointed new counsel, granted a continuance when issues arose, and the trial proceeded with Galloway ultimately representing himself with standby counsel for parts of trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of initial retained counsel | First counsel failed to file motions, timely request discovery, and communicate, prejudicing Galloway’s preparation | Court appointed new counsel, continued trial, and Galloway later made choices (discharged counsel, withdrew continuance, proceeded pro se) | No plain record showing counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable or that Galloway was prejudiced; claim not conclusively shown on direct appeal |
| Access to discovery while detained | Court prevented taking discovery or notes to detention center and provided courthouse lockup without power outlet, impairing pro se preparation | Court cited security concerns, mitigated power issue with extra batteries; Galloway declined continuance | District court acted within discretion; limitations reasonable and no shown prejudice |
| Sufficiency of wiretap affidavits under 18 U.S.C. § 2518 | Affidavits offered boilerplate/conclusory reasons and failed to show other techniques were tried and failed or would be unlikely to succeed | Affidavits detailed investigative steps and addressed ten alternative procedures, explaining why many were tried, impractical, or risky | Authorization was not an abuse of discretion; affidavits met the relatively modest factual showing required |
| Admissibility and management of law‑enforcement expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Agents lacked explained methodology, did not reliably apply methods to facts, and dual role as fact/expert witnesses risked jury confusion | Agents had extensive experience, explained context-based interpretive method; court warned prosecutor to separate lay from expert testimony | No plain error: court properly performed Rule 702 gatekeeping and managed dual-role testimony; any risk of confusion was addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 1995) (direct-appeal standard for raising ineffective-assistance claims)
- Sexton v. French, 163 F.3d 874 (4th Cir. 1998) (presumption that counsel’s conduct is reasonable; Strickland standard applied)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) (limitations on pro se defendants’ access to discovery may be reasonable)
- United States v. Bisong, 645 F.3d 384 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (pro se discovery claims require showing of prejudice)
- United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2007) (wiretap-authorization review and expert testimony on coded language)
- United States v. Smith, 31 F.3d 1294 (4th Cir. 1994) (wiretap necessity standard: government must present specific factual information about investigative difficulties)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (admission and management of testifying officers serving as both lay and expert witnesses)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved trial objections)