United States v. Desmond Janqdhari
701 F. App'x 86
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Desmond Janqdhari, an FDC-Philadelphia inmate, was convicted by a jury of possession of contraband in prison (18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2), (b)(3)) after officers found a shank on his person during a patdown.
- Janqdhari represented himself at trial with standby counsel; after conviction and sentencing he appealed and appellate counsel was appointed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues and sought to withdraw; Janqdhari did not file a pro se response to that brief.
- The Anders brief addressed jurisdiction, sufficiency of the evidence, exclusion of proposed defense witnesses, absence of a duress jury instruction, and the sentence’s legality/reasonableness.
- The court identified another potential issue not in counsel’s brief: admission of an audio-recorded FDC phone call between Janqdhari and a woman (wife/girlfriend), which the District Court admitted without detailed Rule 403 balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Court jurisdiction | Government: Federal court had statutory jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 | Janqdhari: (raised challenge) | Jurisdiction proper; challenge frivolous |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Government: testimony showed shank found on Janqdhari | Janqdhari: insufficiency (challenged evidence) | Evidence sufficient; challenge fails |
| Exclusion of proposed witnesses | Government: Court acted within discretion given late, incomplete proffers | Janqdhari: wanted witnesses to support duress/medical-state defense | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; issue frivolous |
| Failure to give duress jury instruction | Janqdhari: sought instruction based on asserted duress evidence | Government: record lacked evidence of no viable alternatives to illegal conduct | No duty to instruct; record did not support duress; any error harmless |
| Admission of recorded phone call | Janqdhari: tape should have been excluded (privilege, 403 prejudice) | Government: tape admissible; District Court admitted it | Admission was the strongest arguable error but harmless given overwhelming other evidence |
| Sentence legality/reasonableness | Janqdhari: objected to Guidelines calculation (object as weapon) | Government: sentence below statutory max; court applied 3553(a) | No plain error in sentencing; issue frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (requirements for Anders brief and counsel’s duty to search record)
- United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000) (rejecting inadequate Anders briefs that fail to explain why issues are frivolous)
- United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2001) (trial court discretion in admitting witness testimony)
- Egan v. Del. River Port Auth., 851 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2017) (appellate review and harmless-error analysis for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2001) (plain error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)