United States v. Edwina Bigesby
401 U.S. App. D.C. 436
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- MPD obtained search warrant for 1709 Trinidad Ave NE based on CI tip about Whitaker selling crack nearby.
- Warrant affidavit stated Bigesby’s Honda and mailbox tied to apartment; Whitaker not present at scene.
- Search found 100+ grams crack, heroin, marijuana; Whitaker’s items and signs of Whitaker’s presence found.
- Indicted Bigesby for possession with intent to distribute crack, heroin, and marijuana; Whitaker not charged.
- Defense sought to show Whitaker solely possessed drugs; court excluded key CI and Whitaker statements and prior conviction.
- Judge sentenced Bigesby to ten years on crack count, plus concurrent terms and supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CI identities must be disclosed | Bigesby seeks CI identities to rebut joint-possession theory. | Informer’s privilege protects CI identities absent participant/eyewitness link. | No abuse; privilege preserved; CIs neither participants nor eyewitnesses. |
| Admissibility of the warrant affidavit itself | Affidavit would show confidential source corroboration of defense theory. | Court should exclude as marginally relevant and potentially prejudicial. | Court did not abuse discretion; admissibility would risk prejudice outweighing probative value. |
| Exclusion of Whitaker’s self-incriminating statements | Whitaker admission to Bigesby’s investigator is trustworthy corroboration. | Statements lack sufficient corroboration under Rule 804(b)(3). | No abuse; corroboration insufficient; excluded as unreliable. |
| Exclusion of Whitaker’s 2002 crack-conviction evidence | Whitaker’s 2002 conviction is probative of ownership and credibility. | Time gap and potential prejudice render it inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and 403. | Court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed by prejudice. |
| FSA retroactivity for re-sentencing | FSA should apply retroactively to Bigesby’s sentence. | FSA not retroactive for pre-enactment sentences; savings statute applies. | FSA not retroactive; affirmed original sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Warren, 42 F.3d 647 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (informant identity not disclosed unless participant or eyewitness)
- United States v. Gaston, 357 F.3d 77 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (informant privilege governs CI disclosure; abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Edelin, 996 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (trustworthiness corroboration required for third-party statements)
- Duran v. Town of Cicero, 653 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) (balancing probative value and risk of distraction in evidence rulings)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (retroactivity and new rules apply to judicial, not statutory, changes)