United States v. James Chapman
692 F. App'x 583
11th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant James Chapman, a medical practitioner, was convicted of conspiracy and 48 counts for prescribing Oxycodone, Hydrocodone with Acetaminophen (Lorcet), and Alprazolam (Xanax) for other than legitimate medical purposes, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841.
- Chapman appealed, raising five arguments; the opinion addresses venue/jury instruction, sufficiency of evidence of knowledge/willfulness, admission of co-conspirator statements, failure to hold a Franks hearing, and admission of alcohol-use evidence.
- At trial the district court instructed the jury that Bartow County and Cartersville are in the Northern District of Georgia and told jurors they could accept or reject the court’s declaration.
- Government presented substantial evidence (including but not limited to co-conspirator statements) to show Chapman’s awareness of and participation in the conspiracy.
- The district court admitted co-conspirator statements and evidence about Chapman’s alcohol use; it did not hold a Franks hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction/judicial notice of venue | Court improperly told jury Bartow/Cartersville are in Northern District, invading jury province and eliminating venue element | Instruction was judicial notice of a legislative fact; jury still decides whether crime occurred there | Affirmed — location is a legislative fact; court’s instruction did not usurp jury and included nonconclusive language permitted in criminal cases |
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowledge and willfulness | Government failed to prove Chapman knew of or willfully joined conspiracy | Government introduced strong, ample evidence showing knowledge and participation | Affirmed — evidence more than sufficient to support verdict |
| Admission of co-conspirator statements | Statements improperly admitted and prejudicial | Statements were in furtherance of conspiracy and admissible; independent evidence also supported guilt | Affirmed — admission proper and supported by other evidence |
| Franks hearing and alcohol-evidence admission | District court erred in not holding Franks hearing and admitting alcohol evidence | Failure to hold Franks hearing foreclosed by precedent; alcohol evidence admission not an abuse of discretion | Affirmed — Franks claim foreclosed by circuit precedent; no abuse of discretion on alcohol evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goetz, 746 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1984) (trial judge may not decide disputed facts and instruct a verdict)
- Roe v. United States, 287 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1961) (limits on judicial fact-finding by trial judges)
- United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (distinguishing legislative vs. adjudicative facts; judicial notice of Fort Benning’s federal jurisdiction permissible)
- United States v. Gould, 536 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1976) (discussion of legislative and adjudicative facts)
- United States v. Hernandez-Fundara, 58 F.3d 802 (2d Cir. 1995) (court may notice legal status while leaving factual occurrence to jury)
- United States v. Bello, 194 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1999) (nonconclusive judicial-notice language preserves jury’s role)
- United States v. Jones, 580 F.2d 219 (6th Cir. 1978) (similar rule on judicial notice and jury authority)
- United States v. Votrobek, 847 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2017) (Franks-hearing claim preclusion in similar context)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (adopting pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding)
- Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982) (adopting Unit B Fifth Circuit decisions as binding)