United States v. Dominique Jackson
849 F.3d 540
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Jackson was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine based largely on intercepted cellphone calls, testimony of co-conspirators, surveillance, and corroborating documents; he was sentenced to 135 months (later reduced to 120 months).
- The government relied on state-authorized Pennsylvania wiretaps and subsequent federal Title III wiretap orders; some intercepted calls involved phones located outside Pennsylvania.
- Jackson moved pretrial to suppress evidence derived from the federal wiretaps, arguing the state court lacked authority to authorize interceptions of calls occurring outside Pennsylvania (challenging the use of state-wiretap-derived information in federal affidavits).
- At trial, the government introduced: recorded phone calls and transcripts, agent Countryman’s interpretations of calls, testimony from cooperating co-conspirators (who had pled guilty), and documents (hotel, bus/plane receipts, cell-site records).
- On appeal Jackson raised: (1) the suppression claim based on allegedly unlawful state wiretaps and Title III jurisdictional limits; and (2) several unpreserved plain-error claims — agent interpretation testimony, admission of co-conspirators’ guilty-plea evidence, and a prosecutor’s comment referencing a co-conspirator’s Fifth Amendment invocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from federal wiretaps must be suppressed because federal orders relied on information from allegedly unlawful Pennsylvania wiretaps that intercepted out-of-state calls | Pennsylvania courts lacked jurisdiction to authorize interceptions of calls occurring outside the State; therefore state wiretaps were unlawful and tainted federal orders | Title III/listening-post theory permits interception so long as the interception (listening post) occurred within the authorizing court’s jurisdiction; Pennsylvania statute follows Title III; state interceptions were lawful | Affirmed: Pennsylvania and federal law support the “listening post” approach; state wiretaps were lawful and did not taint federal orders |
| Whether Jackson lacked standing to challenge interceptions to which he was not a party | (Implicit) All interceptions used to support probable cause were subject to suppression | Government argued Jackson lacked standing to challenge calls he wasn’t party to | Government waived standing challenge by not raising it below; Jackson treated as aggrieved person and may challenge the interceptions |
| Whether admission of case agent’s interpretive testimony (lay opinion) required reversal under plain-error review | Countryman improperly interpreted clear portions of calls and injected argumentative inferences, usurping the jury’s role | Agent’s interpretations were based on surveillance and helpful; any error was not plain or prejudicial | Court found some Countryman interpretations were improper but not plain error given lack of binding precedent at trial and abundant corroborating evidence |
| Whether admitting co-conspirators’ guilty pleas and plea agreements as evidence was plain error | Guilty pleas risked prejudicial substantive use against Jackson | Guilty plea testimony was admissible to assess witness credibility, explain firsthand knowledge, and dispel selective-prosecution concerns; limiting instruction was given | Admission was permissible under Rule 403 purposes; no plain error |
| Whether prosecutor’s mention of a co-conspirator’s Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury was plain error | Reference invited juror inference of guilt and undermined fairness | Prosecutor’s comment was an inopportune attempt to justify an unavailability exception; the court admitted the statement as co-conspirator statement under 801(d)(2)(E) | Comment was inopportune but not plain error; trial fairness not undermined |
Key Cases Cited
- Giordano v. United States, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) (Title III suppression includes communications unlawfully intercepted; evidence derived from an illegal wiretap must be suppressed)
- United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3d Cir. 1997) (Title III governs suppression of intercepted communications in federal trials)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error review: error must be clear, affect substantial rights, and seriously affect fairness/integrity)
- United States v. Fulton, 837 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2016) (limits on lay witness interpretive testimony under Rule 701; agent testimony cannot usurp jury factfinding)
- United States v. Cano-Flores, 796 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (adopting the listening-post theory allowing interception when monitoring occurs within authorizing jurisdiction)