United States v. Davis
687 F. App'x 75
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Matthew Davis was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and ≥280 g crack in the S.D.N.Y.; he appeals the conviction and various evidentiary and prosecutorial rulings.
- Prosecution presented testimony that Roger Key led a drug conspiracy; a wholesaler, Jermaine “Pudge” Smalls, stored and delivered cocaine and crack at Davis’s residence and said Davis sold drugs for Key.
- After Pudge’s murder and the disappearance of about a kilogram of cocaine, witnesses testified Davis helped investigate the killing and threatened violence against a suspected thief; post-arrest statements by Davis suggested knowledge of the conspiracy.
- District court dismissed murder-for-hire counts (for lack of proof of pecuniary motive) but left a murder charge connected to the drug conspiracy; evidence about the Harrison murder remained before the jury.
- Trial evidence included out-of-court statements by Pudge admitted under the coconspirator exception; the government also introduced pedigree information and other post-arrest statements by Davis.
- Davis raised additional claims: Miranda violations, vindictive prosecution based on indictments/infos, and allegedly misleading trial summation; most claims were either rejected on the merits or deemed forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Davis was a member of Key’s conspiracy | Government: testimony and Davis’s post-arrest admissions support membership | Davis: evidence was insufficient and improperly admitted | Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational jury could find Davis a conspirator |
| Admission of evidence concerning Terry Harrison murder | Government: murder evidence was relevant to Count alleging murder connected to drug conspiracy | Davis: dismissed murder-for-hire counts made murder evidence irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Rejected — murder-related evidence was relevant to the remaining drug-related murder charge |
| Admission of Pudge’s out-of-court statements (hearsay / Confrontation Clause) | Government: statements admissible under coconspirator exception (Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)) | Davis: statements were hearsay and testimonial; Confrontation Clause violation | Affirmed — statements admissible as coconspirator statements; non‑testimonial so Confrontation Clause inapplicable |
| Post-arrest statements and pedigree information (Miranda) | Government: pedigree and routine ID questions not protected; Davis’s calls to mother not an unambiguous request for counsel | Davis: Miranda violation; his request to call mother should be treated as a request for counsel | Rejected — pedigree questions are exempt; request to call mother was not an unambiguous invocation of right to counsel |
| Vindictive prosecution and allegedly misleading summation | Government: procedural history justified; summation combined testimony and intercepted calls appropriately | Davis: filing prior felon information / superseding indictments and summation comments were vindictive or misleading | Vindictive claim forfeited (not raised pretrial); summation claim reviewed for plain error and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220 (elements for admitting coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822 (coconspirator statements can identify identity/activities of coconspirators)
- United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150 (statements conveying progress or status of conspiracy are "in furtherance")
- United States v. Rodriguez, 356 F.3d 254 (pedigree information not covered by Miranda)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (plain‑error review standards)