United States v. Fults
639 F. App'x 366
6th Cir.2016Background
- Confidential informant Dane Briest (wired and paid $250) arranged and recorded the purchase of a Taurus .357 revolver from Timothy Fults at Briest's apartment; Briest, his girlfriend Connie Moulton, and Fults's girlfriend Heather Poison were present. Poison prepared a bill of sale but Fults refused to sign it.
- Officers recovered the gun and bill of sale after the controlled buy; a grand jury indicted Fults for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
- At trial the government played the audio recording and provided a transcript; the district court initially allowed the transcript only as a demonstrative aid, later admitted it into evidence over Fults’s objection. Fults was convicted by a jury.
- Briest testified that he received a text from Fults saying, “Do you know anybody needing a gun,” and identified the number as one he had used repeatedly to contact Fults; the court overruled an authenticity objection.
- The Presentence Report treated Fults as an armed career criminal (ACCA) based on one aggravated robbery and five Tennessee aggravated burglary convictions; the district court sentenced him to 235 months.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing because the district court relied on the ACCA residual clause — later invalidated by the Supreme Court in Johnson — to treat the burglary convictions as predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of transcript of audio recording | Fults argued the transcript was improperly admitted into evidence and that required safeguards (stipulation, transcriber verification, in‑camera review) were not followed, prejudicing him | Government argued transcript was a demonstrative aid initially; trial counsel reviewed transcript and did not contest accuracy; audio itself admitted and transcript mirrored testimony | Transcript admission was not an abuse of discretion; adequate safeguards (investigator verified and assisted in transcript) and jury instructed to trust audio over transcript; even if error, harmless because multiple witnesses corroborated the content |
| Authentication of text message | Fults argued insufficient foundation to attribute the text to him (hearsay/authenticity) | Government relied on Briest's testimony that he had the sender in his contacts, had communicated repeatedly with that number, and Fults arrived shortly after sending the text | Authentication was proper under Rule 901; prima facie foundation was sufficient for the jury to find attribution; any error would be harmless given other evidence |
| ACCA classification / use of aggravated burglary convictions | Fults argued the five Tennessee aggravated burglary convictions were not proper ACCA predicates under the categorical approach; district court relied on cases applying the residual clause | Government and district court treated those convictions as violent felonies under the ACCA residual clause (and relied on prior Sixth Circuit decisions) | Conviction affirmed but sentencing vacated and remanded: district court relied on the ACCA residual clause and must resentence in light of Johnson v. United States invalidating the residual clause |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 872 (6th Cir. 1983) (describing safeguards for admitting transcripts of recordings)
- United States v. Jacob, 377 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for use of transcripts as jury aids)
- United States v. King, 272 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2001) (transcript admission not prejudicial unless inaccurate)
- United States v. Scarborough, 43 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 1994) (use of transcripts permissible where tape is in evidence and defendant shows no prejudice)
- United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2015) (harmless‑error standard in sentencing context)
- United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997) (authentication standard reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Phillips, 752 F.3d 1047 (6th Cir. 2014) (de novo review whether prior conviction qualifies as violent felony under ACCA)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)