United States v. David Lewisbey
843 F.3d 653
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- David Lewisbey ran an interstate gun‑resale operation: he used a fake Indiana ID to buy guns at Indiana gun shows and resold them in Illinois.
- Law enforcement learned of him from his Facebook boasts and conducted a sting; Lewisbey sold 43 guns in five controlled purchases to a confidential informant.
- Trial evidence included video of sales, inculpatory text messages, Facebook posts/photos showing guns and cash, witness testimony about transactions and use of a fake ID, and an FBI agent’s analysis of cell‑phone records.
- Lewisbey was convicted on counts of unlawful dealing, illegal interstate transport of firearms, and traveling with intent to engage in unlicensed dealing; sentenced to 200 months’ imprisonment.
- Defense counsel Beau Brindley faced separate criminal investigations; Lewisbey had waived a conflict relating to a contempt matter, and a later investigation into Brindley arose after conviction and Brindley withdrew on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewisbey’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict‑free counsel was violated by Brindley’s investigations | Brindley’s investigations created an actual conflict incentivizing him to curry favor with government | Brindley’s issues were either waived (contempt) or arose after conviction and were cured when he withdrew | No Sixth Amendment violation; Lewisbey waived the contempt conflict and subsequent investigation arose post‑conviction and was cured by withdrawal |
| Whether trial court abused discretion admitting Lewisbey’s text messages and Facebook posts (hearsay/authentication/Rule 403) | Messages/posts were inadmissible hearsay, unauthenticated, and more prejudicial than probative | Messages were admissions or non‑hearsay for context; phones and Facebook account were sufficiently authenticated; evidence corroborative not cumulative | Admission proper: texts/posts qualified as admissions or non‑hearsay, were authenticated, and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Whether cell‑phone location testimony (Agent Raschke) satisfied Daubert/Rule 702 | Expert testimony about phone locations was unreliable and inadmissible under Rule 702/Daubert | Method (call detail records and cell‑site analysis) is generally accepted and reliable; expert had relevant training and limitations were imposed | No abuse of discretion: court properly conducted Daubert analysis and admissibly limited testimony to general locations |
| Whether any evidentiary errors require reversal | Erroneous rulings, if any, materially affected jury’s verdict | Even without the challenged evidence, the prosecution’s case was strong and any error was not prejudicial | No reversal: record contains abundant evidence of guilt so any error did not affect substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. United States, 909 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir.) (conflict‑of‑interest principles)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (standard for proving Sixth Amendment conflict)
- Ellison v. United States, 798 F.2d 1102 (7th Cir.) (conflict when client interest conflicts with lawyer)
- Lowry v. United States, 971 F.2d 55 (7th Cir.) (waiver of conflict)
- Schmitt v. United States, 770 F.3d 524 (7th Cir.) (deferential review of evidentiary rulings)
- Robinzine v. United States, 80 F.3d 246 (7th Cir.) (statements offered for context not hearsay)
- Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert applies to non‑scientific expert testimony)
- Trudeau v. United States, 812 F.3d 578 (7th Cir.) (harmlessness standard for evidentiary error)