United States v. Emmith Snell, 676 F. App'x 144

Background

From Jan 2009 to Apr 2014 Reginald Lindsey ran a cocaine/crack distribution operation in Charlotte; undercover buys were conducted May–July 2013.
On June 11, 2013, undercover Officer Amir Holding arranged to buy 4.5 ounces of crack; Lindsey realized he’d left the drugs at his stash house and called Emmith Snell to retrieve them.
Snell arrived by motorcycle, entered Lindsey’s car, handed a clear plastic bag across the front seat to Lindsey, then left; the bag later tested positive for cocaine base.
A grand jury indicted multiple defendants; Snell was charged in a conspiracy count (Count 2) and a possession-with-intent/distribution count for June 11, 2013 (Count 9). He was convicted on Count 9 and acquitted on Count 2; sentenced to 63 months.
Post-indictment Lindsey cooperated and testified against Snell. Defense obtained a secret recording of Lindsey telling the defendant’s girlfriend that he had minimized Snell’s role and had written a statement; the district court reviewed government interview notes in camera and found no undisclosed Brady material.
Snell raised: (1) insufficient evidence challenge; (2) challenges under Rule 16, the Jencks Act, and Brady/Giglio regarding alleged undisclosed statements, late disclosure of unrelated officer observations, and nondisclosure of the girlfriend’s conviction history.

Issues

Issue	Snell's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict on Count 9 (possession with intent/distribution)	Lindsey’s testimony was unreliable; identification blurry; evidence insufficient to prove Snell delivered drugs	Lindsey’s testimony, corroborated by undercover officers and video, established Snell handed the drugs to Lindsey	Affirmed—substantial evidence supports conviction; court will not reweigh credibility
Admission of officers’ identifications from blurry still photos	Photos were too blurry to reliably identify Snell; testimony should be excluded	Officers were present, relied on memory and photos; admissibility within trial court’s discretion	No abuse of discretion; jury weighed weight; presence at scene undisputed
Brady/Jencks/Rule 16 claim re: alleged exculpatory/written statements by Lindsey (recording to girlfriend)	Government possessed or should have produced written/exculpatory statements Lindsey allegedly made to prosecutors or written for them	Government denied having such statements; district court reviewed interview notes in camera and found none; recording was not in government possession	No Brady violation—defendant failed to show government had the alleged materials; recording was admitted and used for impeachment
Brady/Rule 16/Jencks claims re: (a) late disclosure that Officer Holding saw Snell at an unrelated prior deal; (b) nondisclosure of girlfriend Martha Scott’s conviction history	Late disclosure and nondisclosure deprived defense of impeachment/use at trial and violated discovery obligations	(a) information not Brady material; government disclosed at sidebar before cross and defense could have used it but chose not to; (b) Scott was defense witness, not government witness, and her rap sheet was equally available to defense	No prejudice shown; no discovery violation requiring reversal

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185 (4th Cir. 1997) (uncorroborated testimony of one witness/accomplice can sustain conviction)
United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2010) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility)
United States v. Bros. Constr. Co., 219 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2000) (Jencks Act disclosure rule)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government must disclose evidence favorable to an accused when material to guilt or punishment)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence concerning government witnesses must be disclosed)