United States v. Evans Appiah
690 F. App'x 807
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Evans Appiah was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft; he appealed the district court’s judgment.
- During trial, Appiah’s mother was observed crying outside the courtroom; defense contended this was an attempt to influence jurors but did not raise the issue at trial.
- Three defense witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment when called or cross-examined; the district court conducted outside-the-presence voir dire and made rulings on a question-by-question basis.
- The defense sought to call S.S. who would invoke the privilege on the stand; A.B. testified but invoked the privilege on cross-examination and the court struck her testimony.
- The government offered rebuttal testimony from Jerald Andal; the defense challenged its admissibility under Rules 403 and 404(b).
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Appiah’s claims of voir dire error, improper handling of Fifth Amendment invocations, and erroneous admission of rebuttal testimony (or finding any error harmless).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should have sua sponte voir dired jurors about mother’s visible crying | Appiah: crying outside courtroom was unauthorized contact warranting Remmer inquiry and special voir dire | Government: no timely objection; no basis to presume prejudice; defense failed initial burden under Remmer | Court: No plain error; Appiah failed to show unauthorized contact that reasonably cast doubt on verdict integrity |
| Whether district court erred in handling witnesses invoking Fifth Amendment | Appiah: court’s procedure improperly impeded presentation of defense and compelled adverse inference | Government: court appropriately conducted outside-the-jury voir dire and permitted privilege assertion question-by-question | Court: No abuse of discretion; inquiry was proper and invocation permitted where appropriate |
| Whether court erred by not forcing S.S. to testify only to invoke privilege | Appiah: calling S.S. would have supported defense narrative | Government: requiring testimony solely to invoke privilege is improper and prejudicial | Court: Correct to refuse to force S.S. to take the stand solely to invoke privilege |
| Whether striking A.B.’s testimony violated right to present a defense | Appiah: striking prevented defense from presenting witness testimony | Government: witness voluntarily testified on limited topics then properly invoked privilege on details, barring further testimony | Court: No error in striking; a witness may not testify selectively about a subject then invoke the privilege on related cross-examination |
| Whether admission of Jerald Andal’s rebuttal testimony was improper under Rules 403/404(b) | Appiah: Andal’s testimony was unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible character evidence | Government: testimony admissible for non-character purposes and probative; limited and brief | Court: No abuse of discretion in admission; any error harmless given brevity and strong evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (presumption of prejudice from unauthorized juror contact)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error review framework)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (scope of Fifth Amendment privilege)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (invocation of privilege after plea; limits on adverse inference)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (Remmer burden on defendant in Fourth Circuit)
- United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (review standard for voir dire decisions in jury intimidation claims)
- United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219 (balancing defendant’s right to call witnesses and witness’s privilege)
- United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328 (refusing to require a witness to testify solely to invoke privilege is not abuse)
- Lawson v. Murray, 837 F.2d 653 (limits on using Fifth Amendment to avoid cross-examination)
- United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311 (cross-examination as essential; privilege cannot provide selective immunity)
- Garraghty v. Johnson, 830 F.2d 1295 (deference to trial court’s Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267 (Rule 404(b) is inclusive; district court discretion)
- United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308 (reversal for evidentiary error requires affecting substantial rights)