United States v. Ham
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 448
6th Cir.2011Background
- Knox County Sheriff's Office used a confidential informant to conduct controlled crack cocaine buys at 1537 Virginia Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee, leading to a search warrant.
- Officers executed the warrant on September 18, 2007; entry was forcible after no one answered.
- Ham was found hiding in a bedroom closet with 37.4 grams of crack cocaine at his feet; a .380 pistol (unloaded) and ammunition were in the closet, and a loaded 9 mm pistol was on an armoire nearby.
- Cash totaling $1,008 was seized from Ham and the premises, along with drug paraphernalia, scales, baggies, and three cell phones; a razor blade plate with residue was found in the bathroom.
- Ham was charged with possession with intent to distribute crack, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; he was convicted on all counts after trial and sentenced to 190 months plus eight years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Agent Lewis's testimony | Lewis's testimony about drug-dealer methods is relevant and admissible as expert testimony under Rule 702. | Court failed to assess relevance/probative value before admitting the testimony; extent of expertise was improper. | No plain error; testimony properly admitted as highly relevant. |
| Personal-use quantities by Agent Lewis | Qualified officers may testify that quantities are consistent with distribution. | Lewis exceeded expertise regarding personal-use quantities. | No plain error; testimony within accepted scope. |
| Bryant's dual-role testimony on drugs paraphernalia | Dual role is permissible; notice and instructions suffice to mitigate risk. | Dual testimony without explicit cautionary instruction may prejudice defendant. | No reversible error; adequate jury instructions and substantial other evidence support conviction. |
| Admission of Sheffield's prior-crack complaint and judgment | Evidence could bear on drug distribution context and credibility. | Evidence irrelevant to defendant's guilt and improperly admitted. | District court did not abuse discretion; evidence not probative of defendant's guilt. |
| Consecutive § 924(c) sentence after Abbott v. United States | § 924(c) mandatory minimum applies irrespective of longer related mandatory sentences. | Abbany/Almany implications require different treatment; the sentence may be improper. | Five-year § 924(c) minimum proper; Abbott controls; Almany vacated; sentence upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 514 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2008) (assessing prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary issues)
- United States v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for admitting evidence and plain error review)
- United States v. Cowart, 90 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 1996) (plain error review when objection not raised below)
- United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 1996) (expert testimony by law enforcement in drug-dealing context admissible)
- United States v. Swafford, 385 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 2004) (factors for determining gun possession in furtherance of drug trafficking)
- United States v. Smith, 601 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2010) (dual testifying witness issues and cautionary instruction sufficiency)
- United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2009) (admissibility and weight of expert testimony by law enforcement)
- United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999) (relevance of co-conspirator or joint-possessor evidence)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010) (Abbott clarifies § 924(c) 'except' clause and consecutive sentences)