United States v. Harvey
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16003
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Harvey purchased five handguns in Cincinnati between January and August 2007, falsely stating on ATF Form 4473 that he was the actual purchaser.
- Guns later surfaced in the hands of Perkins (a minor) and Suki; some were linked to drug activity and a homicide investigation.
- ATF agents interviewed Harvey in March 2008 and December 2008; he provided multiple inconsistent accounts about ownership and possession.
- Harvey was indicted on two counts for making false statements in the firearms purchases; the second interview recording contained multiple prior exclusions.
- At trial, the court excluded portions of the recording but admitted the full recording after defense cross-examined an agent; he was acquitted on one count and convicted on the other, and a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6) was applied at sentencing.
- Harvey appeals all challenges, including sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, responses to jury questions, and the sentencing enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Harvey argues evidence fails to prove knowingly false statement or materiality. | Harvey contends the record supports his defense and undermines the Government's theory. | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence. |
| Admission of recorded second interview | Exclusion should have remained; prior ruling barred certain content and the door should not be opened. | Prosecution harmed by exclusion; cross-examination opened door to full recording. | Court did not abuse discretion; door opened and full recording admitted. |
| Jury instructions on burden and motive/intent | Instructions misstate burden or improperly distinguish motive and intent. | Instructions correctly stated law; no plain error. | Instructions proper; no plain error. |
| Court’s response to jury questions | Reading back testimony prejudicial or inappropriate in light of factual questions. | Response was appropriate, contextualized, and guided by cautionary instruction. | No abuse of discretion; appropriate exercise under circumstances. |
| § 2K2.1(b)(6) sentencing enhancement | Harvey lacked the required nexus to believe firearms would be used in another felony. | Record supports inference that weapons would be used in drug trafficking; enhancement proper. | Enhancement properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for plain error review and jury instruction adequacy)
- United States v. Guthrie, 557 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2009) (very broad discretion in evidentiary balancing; Rule 403 considerations)
- United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 1998) (defendant may open the door to otherwise suppressed evidence)
- United States v. Neuhausser, 241 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2001) (jury credibility and reliance on recollection instruction)
- United States v. Davis, 490 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for responding to jury's factual questions and corroboration)
- United States v. Padin, 787 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1986) (reading testimony to jury during deliberations; discretion)