United States v. Harris
660 F.3d 47
1st Cir.2011Background
- Harris was convicted on counts 1-4 and 7 relating to the Hannaford robbery, with Matos and Peterson; the trio planned and executed the robbery, Harris provided the get-away car, and they split the proceeds.
- Harris was identified in surveillance and by telephone records linking him to the robbers, including calls to Peterson's girlfriend and a pre-robbery call test.
- Harris admitted to knowing Peterson, owning a Yankees hat like one found at the Wyndham Hotel, and buying gloves the night of the robbery; he refused to provide a DNA sample.
- The indictment chronology included an initial four-count indictment, a superseding indictment adding Hannaford counts and other charges, and trial proceedings in early September 2009; evidence included Matos’s testimony, video, and telephone records.
- In February 2009 a district court ordered a competency evaluation for Harris; a forensic report found him competent; the speedy trial period and continuances were litigated, and new counts were later waived/withdrawn; the appeal raised issues about counsel, DNA, and Brady-like claims not properly preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency hearing requirement prior to arraignment | Harris contends a formal competency hearing was required | Court should have held a formal hearing before arraignment | No error; no mandatory hearing absent unusual circumstances |
| Speedy Trial Act timing and exclusions | Delays due to competency evaluation and co-defendant continuances violated the Act | Exclusions were proper; waiver of new counts acceptable | Trial within 70-day limit; no violation |
| DNA evidence refusal and inference | DNA refusal implied guilt and warranted an inferential cue | Fifth Amendment concerns; cautionary instruction insufficient | Instruction adequate; no plain error in handling of DNA evidence |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Matoss’s testimony and corroborating evidence prove Harris’s involvement | Defense weaknesses and lack of DNA undermine case | Evidence sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Claims of ineffective assistance and government misconduct | Counsel provided inadequate representation; government presented false testimony/Brady violations | Claims not preserved; record insufficient to resolve on appeal | Not reviewable on direct appeal; collateral attack appropriate; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lebron, 76 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1996) (no mandatory formal hearing after competency finding unless unusual circumstances)
- United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992) (limits on competency hearing considerations)
- United States v. Joost, 133 F.3d 125 (1st Cir.) (continuance exclusions under Speedy Trial Act)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review for trial omissions)
- United States v. Wyatt, 561 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (collateral attack avenues for claims of counsel and government action)