United States v. Henderson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23799
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Henderson was convicted of bank robbery in 1981 and released in 1996.
- Two witnesses who aided the government in the 1981 bank robbery were killed in 1996 and 1998.
- In 2006 Henderson was charged with two retaliatory-murder counts and two firearm offenses.
- A jury convicted him on all four counts in 2007; he received two life terms and two consecutive two-year terms.
- The district court admitted statements from the murder victims under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine and the Confrontation Clause was challenged.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment after analyzing evidentiary rulings, ineffective assistance claims, and sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause and forfeiture-by-wrongdoing admission | Bass's statement testimonial; improper under Giles. | Forfeiture-by-wrongdoing should admit; statements not testimonial. | Harmless error for Washington; Bass's statement non-testimonial; overall harmless error. |
| Ineffective assistance—Collins testimony | Cross-examination caused Collins to be called; defense was prejudiced. | Counsel's performance deficient; improved defense. | Claim premature; insufficient record to show prejudice; no direct post-conviction relief. |
| Ineffective assistance—prison telephone recordings | Counsel failed to object to inadmissible or prejudicial recordings. | Recordings were admissible non-hearsay or non-prejudicial. | Record supports admissibility; no meritorious ineffective-assistance showing. |
| Rule 404(b) other-acts evidence | Evidence of Beauford, Humphrey, McClendon improper 404(b) acts. | Evidence intrinsic to the charged crimes; not 404(b). | Evidence properly admitted as intrinsic to the crimes; no plain error. |
| Substitution of counsel and presence at critical stage | Court failed to substitute counsel after breakdown in attorney-client relation. | No substantial breakdown; no need to substitute; presence not essential. | District court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination for testimonial statements)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (Forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine limited; requires intent to procure absence of witness)
- United States v. McGee, 529 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2008) (Confrontation issues reviewed de novo and harmless-error analysis applied)
- United States v. Childs, 539 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2008) (Confrontation clause and non-hearsay relevance in context of testimonial statements)
- United States v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Harmless-error standard for confrontation Clause violations)