United States v. George Lawrence, V
708 F. App'x 84
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- George J. Lawrence, recently released after a prior drug conviction, was investigated in 2013 after multiple controlled buys (three) involving an undercover officer (UC) and confidential informants (CIs).
- During the third controlled buy at Paulette Alt’s home, the UC/CI did not directly observe Lawrence hand crack to Alt; Alt briefly left and then returned and handed drugs to the UC.
- An agent testified to the grand jury and swore an affidavit stating the UC witnessed Lawrence meet and supply crack to Alt; the testimony/affidavit omitted that the handoff occurred off-camera and was inferred.
- A search warrant for Lawrence’s home was issued based on the affidavit; officers searched, found evidence, and arrested Lawrence.
- Lawrence moved to dismiss the indictment alleging grand-jury false/misleading testimony and sought a Franks hearing alleging intentional/reckless false statements in the affidavit; the district court denied both motions.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding omissions were not prejudicial to the grand jury, the challenged affidavit language was not material to probable cause, and the affidavit established a sufficient nexus to the home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grand-jury testimony/omissions require dismissal | Agent misled grand jury by implying UC/CI personally saw Lawrence hand drugs to Alt; prejudiced indictment | Omission was at most description of a reasonable inference; ample other evidence supported indictment | No dismissal; district court not clearly erroneous — omission not prejudicial |
| Whether a Franks hearing is required for alleged false affidavit statement | Affidavit falsely claimed UC witnessed Lawrence supply crack to Alt; statement was intentional/reckless and material | Even if false, the statement was not material; removing it leaves abundant probable-cause facts | No Franks hearing; alleged falsehood not material to probable cause |
| Whether affidavit established nexus between alleged drug activity and Lawrence’s home | Affidavit lacked link showing evidence likely at Lawrence’s residence | Affidavit included controlled buys, interactions near house, business address at home, and officer’s experience — supporting nexus | Warrant supported by fair probability of finding evidence at home; nexus satisfied |
| Use of Lawrence’s prior criminal history before grand jury | Prior history was irrelevant and prejudicial | Grand jury proceedings are not bound by ordinary evidence rules; prior convictions permissible in grand-jury context | Admission of prior history did not require dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to hearing when affidavit contains intentional/reckless falsehoods material to probable cause)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (prejudice standard for dismissing indictments based on grand jury violations)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable-cause standard for warrants is a ‘‘fair probability’’ test)
- United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2010) (officers’ conclusions about where evidence is likely to be found can inform nexus analysis)