555 F. App'x 60
2d Cir.2014Background
- Faison was convicted after a jury trial of multiple cocaine base offenses tied to three drug transactions (Mar. 2, 2010; Mar. 10, 2010; Jun. 15, 2010).
- He was arrested by Nassau County police in June 2010 and later federally arrested while in state custody.
- He represented himself at trial.
- The district court admitted evidence and testimony related to pre-transaction conduct, drug pricing, and June 2010 negotiations.
- The defense challenges include indictment timing, double jeopardy concerns, speedy-trial issues, evidentiary rulings, alleged perjury, prosecutorial conduct, lab testimony, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arrest and indictment timing | Faison alleges the arrest/indictment process was improper due to a fraudulent warrant. | Government contends probable cause supported arrest; no warrant needed. | Arrest valid; no Speedy Trial Act violation; no fraud in warrant/indictment. |
| Double jeopardy and dual sovereignty | State prosecution could bar federal charges under double jeopardy. | No sham or control by one sovereign; dual sovereignty applies. | Not barred by double jeopardy; no sham or control; sequential prosecutions permitted. |
| Admission of pre-transaction conduct and related testimony | Challenged testimony about prior conduct should have been excluded. | Evidence was admissible under Rule 404/408 and related standards. | No error; testimony admissible as part of the same transaction or to complete the story. |
| Alleged perjury by prosecution witnesses | Several witnesses allegedly lied; conviction should be reversed. | Inconsistencies are for the jury; no willful perjury shown. | No reversal; credibility questions for the jury. |
| Sufficiency and reliability of trial evidence | Evidence insufficient to support all counts. | Video/audio and informant testimony prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence overwhelming; counts established beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (Supreme Court 1976) (probable cause permits arrest without a warrant)
- United States v. Sewell, 252 F.3d 647 (2d Cir. 2001) (dual sovereignty principle for separate sovereign prosecutions)
- United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2002) (exception for sham prosecutions under dual sovereignty)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court 1975) (jeopardy does not attach until proceeding begins before a trier of fact)
- United States v. Lai Ming Tanu, 589 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1978) (Speedy Trial Act timing begins at federal arrest)
- United States v. Jones, 129 F.3d 718 (2d Cir. 1997) (no ruse to circumvent Speedy Trial Act)
- United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2009) (evidentiary rulings in trial context upheld)
- United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2010) (evidentiary connection to charged offense valid)