United States v. Henry Freeman
61 V.I. 679
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Freeman and Mark were charged in a 14-count indictment with conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine via a Virgin Islands drug operation.
- Trial evidence included cooperating witnesses Springette, Turnbull, and Isaac outlining a multi-year conspiracy with Mark as a key operator.
- Court dismissed Counts III–XIII at the close of government case; Counts I, II, and XIV went to trial with jury verdicts on Count I only.
- Jury instructions permitted a “measurable amount” of cocaine to prove conspiracy rather than requiring five kilograms; the indictment alleged five kilograms or more.
- Freeman’s PSR tied base offense to trial findings and elevated him based on leadership and organization; Mark’s PSR attributed substantial quantities after DEA reports, with different sentencing outcomes.
- On appeal, the court affirmed Freeman’s conviction and sentence, but vacated Mark’s sentence and remanded for further sentencing record development due to quantity-findings and reliability concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury was properly instructed on elements of conspiracy | Freeman and Mark contend the indictment required proof of five kilograms. | Gov’t argued base conspiracy suffices with measurable quantity; no need for explicit 5 kg proof. | Yes; the lesser included offense instruction was proper; base offense can be a subset of charged offense under Rule 31(c) and Lacy v. United States applied. |
| Alleyne error and drug-quantity findings at sentencing | Alleyne requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt for any fact increasing a mandatory minimum. | Findings within an advisory Guidelines framework may rely on judicial factfinding without violating Alleyne when within statutory range. | No Alleyne error; findings used to determine Guidelines range were permissible so long as sentence stayed within statutory maximum. |
| Adequacy of district court’s factual findings on drug quantity | Findings lacked sufficient indicia of reliability, especially for Mark; Miele standard not met. | Court articulated basis for Freeman’s quantity; Mark’s record insufficiently developed on quantity. | Freeman affirmed (adequate basis); Mark remanded for further factual development and explanation of quantity findings. |
| Brady and variance challenges by Mark (and relatedly other issues) | Turnbull/Springette and Isaac letters imply suppressed favorable evidence affecting credibility. | Letters post-date trial or defense had possession; no proven suppression; variance not established. | Brady claim rejected; no prejudice shown; variance argument rejected as trial evidence supported a single conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lacy, 446 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of base offense may be lesser included offenses of charged offense)
- United States v. Bobb, 471 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; abuse of discretion)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1989) (lesser included offenses require subset-element relationship)
- United States v. Miele, 989 F.2d 659 (3d Cir. 1993) (sentencing evidence must have indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-stage review of sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable)
- United States v. Ramirez-Negron, 751 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2014) (Alleyne issues in advisory-Guidelines context; no error where range within statutory limits)