United States v. James Maarvin Hawkins
934 F.3d 1251
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- DEA investigated a Montgomery, AL cocaine distribution ring (starting Nov. 2014), using CI buys and five wiretap authorizations that intercepted ~20,000–25,000 communications on six target phones.
- Recordings and other investigation identified Carlos Ware as a supplier and Hawkins and McCree as distributors; traffic stops yielded nearly $300,000 from Ware and drugs/firearm from McCree’s car.
- A grand jury returned a superseding 26-count indictment charging Hawkins and McCree with conspiracy and multiple drug- and firearm-related offenses; other defendants pleaded guilty; Hawkins and McCree proceeded to trial.
- The Government’s lead agent, George Russell, was the principal witness and was presented/allowed to give expert testimony about the investigation, intercepted communications, and drug trafficking practices.
- Defense counsel lodged limited objections at trial but did not consistently strike or persist; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit found Russell’s testimony repeatedly went beyond permissible expert lay interpretation—speculating, interpreting plain language, identifying speakers, and summarizing evidence.
- The court affirmed suppression rulings and traffic-stop rulings, but held Russell’s improper dual-role testimony was plain error that affected the defendants’ substantial rights; it vacated several convictions and sentences and remanded for new trials/resentencing as specified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of wiretap evidence (necessity under 18 U.S.C. §2518) | Hawkins & McCree: wiretap apps failed §2518 necessity requirement | Government: affidavits showed other techniques tried/why wiretap was needed; good-faith Leon protection | Wiretaps valid; affidavits met necessity; Leon good-faith applies — denial of suppression affirmed |
| Suppression of traffic-stop evidence (McCree) | McCree: stop lacked probable cause | Government: officers observed lane change without signaling (traffic infraction) | Credibility findings upheld; probable cause for stop existed — suppression denial affirmed |
| Constructive amendment / variance of conspiracy charge (Hawkins) | Hawkins: evidence at trial (texts/calls about a different supplier) broadened indictment or showed multiple conspiracies | Government: texts consistent with charged conspiracy (distributor informing supplier) | No constructive amendment or material variance — conviction theory fit the indictment |
| Admissibility/scope of Agent Russell’s testimony (Hawkins & McCree) | Hawkins & McCree: Russell gave speculative, interpretive, and narrative opinions beyond permissible expert/lay scope that invaded the jury’s role | Government: Russell was an expert; some testimony was lay opinion and admissible; any error harmless | Court: Russell presented as expert and also case agent; he improperly interpreted ordinary language, speculated, identified speakers, and synthesized evidence; plain error affected outcome; convictions on specified counts vacated and remanded for new trial; some firearm convictions for McCree affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568 (11th Cir.) (necessity provision of §2518 does not require exhausting every investigative method)
- United States v. De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court) (good-faith exception to suppression)
- United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (limits on agent testimony interpreting conversations as a whole)
- United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir.) (dangers when case agent acts as expert and interprets evidence)
- United States v. Grinage, 390 F.3d 746 (2d Cir.) (agent interpretations central to government’s case can require reversal)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (Supreme Court) (plain-error review framework)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court) (traffic-stop Fourth Amendment analysis focuses on objective probable cause)