United States v. Jadlowe, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24736

In November 2005, Jadlowe and fourteen others were charged in an 11-count indictment, including conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and possession and distribution of cocaine on November 4, 2005.
DEA conducted wiretaps on co-defendants’ phones; calls implicated Jadlowe as “Uncle Marc” and linked his garage to cocaine storage.
On November 4, 2005, agents surveilled Jadlowe's Arch Street property; surveillance captured activity at the garage and Jadlowe’s movements.
Ten kilograms of cocaine were found in Jadlowe’s garage the day after surveillance; a cell phone and related phone records were seized.
The district court denied suppression of the cocaine and cell phone, but suppressed evidence seized from Jadlowe’s two houses, and Jadlowe was convicted at a five-day trial in July 2008.
On appeal, Jadlowe challenged suppression rulings, several evidentiary rulings, and a jury-instruction allowing pre-deliberation discussion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Premature jury discussion instruction error	Jadlowe argues the instruction improperly allowed discussions before deliberations.	The government contends the instruction was harmless and not prejudicial.	Instruction erroneous but not prejudicial; no new trial required.
Whether the error is structural	Jadlowe asserts the error is structural and reversible without showing prejudice.	The government maintains it is not structural, and prejudice must be shown.	Error not structural; requires showing prejudice, which record does not support.
Suppression of cocaine and cell phone; independent source	Cocaine and phone should be suppressed as tainted by unlawful entry.	Independent source/inevitable discovery doctrines saved admissibility.	Cocaine admissible under independent source/inevitable discovery; phone seizure lawful.
Admissibility of phone records (Exhibit 12)	Exhibit 12 contained tainted data from the illegal searches and should be excluded.	Exhibit 12 contained some admissible pen-register data; tainted portions were harmless.	Exhibit 12 error harmless; admissible portion (1022 phone) supported by pen register data.
Lay identifications and transcripts	Fallon and Simmons identifications and transcripts were improper lay opinion and should be excluded.	Evidence was helpful to understanding testimony and was supported by corroborating evidence.	Identifications and transcripts were harmless error; overwhelming circumstantial evidence supported guilt.

Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (Supreme Court, 1984) (independent source doctrine for tainted evidence linked to a subsequent warranted search)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court, 1988) (independent source/tainted-view doctrine; whether warrant would have been sought without illegal entry)
Dessesaure, 429 F.3d 359 (1st Cir. 2005) (two-part inquiry for independent source/inevitable discovery after unlawful entry)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1999) (harmless-error framework; some errors per se not subject to harmless-error analysis)
Winebrenner v. United States, 147 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1945) (premature jury discussions undermine right to impartial jury)