United States v. Houston
648 F.3d 806
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Houston and Bridgewater were AB members tried for RICO (§1962(c)), RICO conspiracy (§1962(d)), and two VICAR counts (§1959).
- A letter with invisible ink revealed “War with DC Blacks,” triggering a plan to attack DC Blacks prison inmates.
- Benton and Bridgewater recruited others; Houston offered to kill DC Blacks in A Unit; Benton devised strategy to move Houston.
- Murders: Abdul Salaam (14-34 wounds) and Frank Joyner; Bridgewater and Schwyhart involved; Salaam’s blood found on Benton's clothes/knife.
- The government introduced jailhouse informant McConaghy’s testimony about Houston’s threatening statements; defense challenged credibility and disclosure.
- Each defendant was sentenced to life without parole; both appeal asserting Brady/Napue/ instructional errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady disclosure and perjury claims | Houston and Bridgewater contend Brady violations. | They argue government withheld McConaghy testimony and notes; perjury alleged. | Plain error not established; disclosures timely and impeachment effective. |
| Mooney-Napue due process claim | McConaghy’s false testimony and government know-how allegedly affected verdict. | No actual false testimony proven; no material impact. | No reversible Mooney-Napue violation; overwhelming corroboration favored verdict. |
| Duress instructions not given | District court abused by denying California/Pennsylvania/federal duress defenses. | There was evidence of immediate threat/limited escape; warranted instruction. | No abuse; no immediate threat or viable escape; Pennsylvania/federal distinctions support denial. |
| VICAR instruction adequacy (position element) | Need explicit state predicate alignment to AB position; misinstruction risk. | Pinkerton framework adequately covers liability; no plain error. | Instruction proper; no plain error in VICAR murder instructions. |
| Second-degree predicate as VICAR base | Allowing second-degree predicate could affect conviction. | No lesser-included-predicate-offense allowing for acquittal; properly excluded. | No reversible error; no lesser-included-predicate-offense instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (prosecution of false testimony must be corrected)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1935) (due process when government allows false testimony at trial)
- Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (Mooney-Napue standard; failure to correct perjury)
- Zuno-Arce (Zuno-Arce II), 339 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2003) (materiality in Napue context; reasonable likelihood of impact on jury)
- United States v. Tse, 135 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 1998) (Pinkerton liability and VICAR mens rea elements)
- Forsythe, 594 F.2d 947 (3d Cir. 1979) (lesser-included-predicate-offense doctrine rejected for VICAR context)