United States v. Chinua Shepperson
739 F.3d 176
4th Cir.2014Background
- Chinua Shepperson was charged in a superseding indictment in the District of Maryland with 19 defendants for conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, murder in aid of racketeering, and related offenses; counts included 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1959, 1951, 924(c), and 924(j).
- The case involved capital-eligible offenses, but the Attorney General elected not to seek the death penalty.
- All but one defendant pled guilty; Shepperson went to trial and was convicted on all counts after about two weeks of proceedings.
- He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten years.
- On appeal, Shepperson contends (i) the district court failed to provide two counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3005 and (ii) the Government’s failure to provide a witness list under 18 U.S.C. § 3432 affected a cooperating witness’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 3005 two-counsel requirement applies? | Shepperson asserts district court must sua sponte advise right to two attorneys. | Court should have informed him of § 3005 rights even without request. | No plain error; § 3005 requires a request for second counsel; no sua sponte obligation. |
| § 3432 witness list in non-capital case? | Hall and Fulks require capital list; § 3432 applies to capital offenses. | Death-penalty not pursued; Hall controls; list not required. | Not plain error; case not a capital case; timing adequate and no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boone, 245 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2001) (capital defendant entitled to two counsel upon request)
- United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 1215 (4th Cir. 1976) (two counsel upon request in capital cases)
- Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1969) (capital list mandatory but not reversible where no death penalty pursued)
- United States v. Fulks, 454 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006) (discusses § 3432 applicability to capital sentencing context)
- United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2013) (plain-error framework; application to unsettled issues)
- United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (consults cross-circuit approach when issue unsettled)
- United States v. Wynn, 684 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 2012) (plain-error inquiry when circuit-split exists)
- United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210 (4th Cir. 2008) (discusses plain-error standard in uncertain circuit law)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error test (error, plain, and substantial rights))
- United States v. Blankenship, 548 F.2d 1118 (4th Cir. 1976) (statutory-rights versus constitutional rights; waiver context)