United States v. Delexsia Harris
886 F.3d 1120
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Delexsia Harris was convicted of witness tampering (18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1)) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §1503) for lying to police, soliciting false alibi testimony, and threatening potential witnesses in connection with the murder of Ceola Lazier and related prosecutions of her brothers.
- Evidence at trial showed Harris arranged contact between Lazier and her brother Charlie Green, lied to Detective Curulla about the shooting’s circumstances (contradicted by shell-casing placement and surveillance video), and later pressured Lashawn White to provide a false alibi for Green.
- Harris posted threatening messages on Facebook naming witnesses and posted images interpreted as threats; the government introduced a protective order from the related Villanueva prosecution and evidence that the order had been violated and a witness (White) relocated.
- The government charged Harris based on corruptly making false statements after Lazier’s murder and assisting Green to obtain false alibi testimony; Harris raised only evidentiary challenges on appeal.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion (or plain error where preservation was disputed) and affirmed Harris’s convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all evidence concerning Lazier’s murder should have been excluded under Rule 403 | Harris: evidence of the murder was irrelevant to her obstruction/witness tampering charges and unduly prejudicial; admission effectively tried her for murder | Govt: murder evidence was highly probative of whether Harris lied and acted corruptly; needed to provide context for obstruction charge | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence probative of obstruction/corrupt intent and not unfairly prejudicial; photographs admissible |
| Admissibility of White’s testimony recounting statements that Lazier wanted Green dead and Green telling Harris to get Lazier’s number (hearsay/Rule 403) | Harris: statements are hearsay and prejudicial | Govt: statements offered to show effect on Green/Harris (not for truth), thus not hearsay; probative of motive and Harris’s participation | Court: Statements admissible as non-hearsay to show effect on listeners; Rule 403 not violated |
| Admissibility of Barton’s testimony recounting Green’s statements on the night of the murder (co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) | Harris: statements were narrative, not made in furtherance of a conspiracy; thus inadmissible hearsay and unduly prejudicial | Govt: liberal standard for "in furtherance"; statements explained plan and alerted co-conspirators as plan unfolded | Court: Statements satisfied co-conspirator exception and were admissible; Rule 403 challenge rejected |
| Admission of evidence about the protective order and its violation in the related Villanueva case | Harris: irrelevant and prejudicial, especially since she was unaware of the order | Govt: order’s existence and its violation showed the risks faced by witnesses and bore on whether Harris’s communications were reasonably interpreted as threats | Court: Evidence relevant to witness-tampering charge; probative value outweighed minimal prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilk, 572 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Hoffman-Vaile, 568 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for evidentiary claims raised first on appeal)
- United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2015) (out-of-court statements offered to show effect on hearer are generally not hearsay)
- United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1990) (meaning of "corruptly" under obstruction statute)
- United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627 (11th Cir. 1983) (relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Hasner, 340 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003) (elements for co-conspirator statement admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1988) (liberal standard for determining whether statement was in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2002) (statements that explain the conspiracy to a member are in furtherance)
- United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2017) (whether a communication is a threat is a jury question measured by a reasonable recipient familiar with context)
- United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (cumulative error review)
- United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 2011) (no cumulative-error reversal where no individual errors)