United States v. Dockery Cleveland
907 F.3d 423
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Law enforcement intercepted a shipment of ten kilograms of cocaine hidden in a damaged car, replaced the bricks with inert "sham kilos," and monitored delivery to a house associated with Larone Williams.
- Agents observed Dockery Cleveland and Williams receive the car, followed them to Williams’s residence, and obtained a search warrant for the house.
- Search of the residence recovered sham kilos, packaging tools, an electronic scale, a loaded 9mm handgun (serial number matching a stolen gun), and a cellphone belonging to Cleveland; fluorescent powder on Cleveland’s hands matched the sham-package residue.
- Cleveland’s Samsung Galaxy was seized; a warrant dated November 6, 2015 directed execution by November 27. The phone was shipped to a DEA lab on November 9; forensic extraction occurred December 21.
- At trial the government introduced call logs and photos from the phone; a jury convicted Cleveland of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute. Cleveland appealed, raising four issues regarding suppression, Batson, firearm evidence, and closing argument misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cleveland) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of cellphone data extraction under warrant | Warrant required extraction be completed by Nov 27; extraction on Dec 21 violated warrant and required suppression | Warrant’s execution deadline governs seizure/shipping of device, not off-site analysis; phone was shipped before deadline | Affirmed: Rule 41(e)(2)(B) means execution deadline applies to seizure/on-site copying; off-site extraction may occur later |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike of juror Reed | Strike was racially motivated; government gave pretextual reason | Strike was based on race-neutral concerns about Reed’s ambiguous law-enforcement background and demeanor; two other jurors of color remained | Affirmed: government offered race-neutral reason; Cleveland failed to rebut; no plain error |
| Admission of testimony that firearm was stolen | Testimony that gun was stolen was prejudicial and suggested prior bad acts or burglary involvement | Gun evidence was relevant as "tools of the trade" in drug trafficking; stolen-history mention, even if error, was harmless | Affirmed: firearm admissible as relevant to drug conspiracy; testimony about theft, if erroneous, was harmless given lack of link to Cleveland and strong case against him |
| Prosecutor’s closing comments about community harm and guns-and-drugs correlation | Appeals to jurors to "protect the community" and equate guns with drug dealing improperly inflamed jury and constituted misconduct | Comments described common-sense harms and the relevance of firearm evidence; did not ask jury to "send a message" or request specific verdict | Affirmed: remarks not improper or flagrant; any isolated comments did not render trial unfair given strong evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based on race violate Equal Protection)
- United States v. Castro, 881 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2018) (Rule 41 permits post-seizure off-site review of seized phones)
- United States v. Carrington, [citation="700 F. App'x 224"] (4th Cir.) (post-deadline forensic review of seized phones consistent with Rule 41)
- United States v. Jackson, 347 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2003) (Batson analysis and burden to rebut prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation)
- United States v. Wheaton, 517 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2008) (firearm evidence admissible as probative "tool of the trade" in drug prosecutions)