545 F. App'x 243
4th Cir.2013Background
- On Aug. 14, 2010, Franklin, with co-defendants Williams and Frazier, participated in two armed carjackings in Baltimore: first the green Buick LeSabre, then a red Dodge Charger. Victims reported weapons and provided descriptions (heavy-set man in a colorful striped shirt).
- Police located and stopped the LeSabre, arrested its driver (Frazier), and later found the Charger after it struck a parked car; one occupant (Williams) was found hiding nearby.
- Officers shortly thereafter encountered Franklin nearby (heavy-set, striped shirt, sweating) and stopped him; during a pat-down they recovered a victim’s cell phone and an ID belonging to the LeSabre driver.
- A loaded revolver and additional victim property were found in the same block; victims were brought to the scene within minutes and identified Franklin in a show-up while he was in handcuffs.
- Franklin was indicted on conspiracy to commit carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 371), two counts of carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119), two counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). The district court denied suppression motions; Franklin was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 414 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest / admissibility of items seized during search incident to arrest | Franklin: officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, so the cell phone and ID seized should be suppressed | Government: officers observed vehicles matching reports, apprehended co-defendant, found an occupant hiding, saw Franklin matching a recent radio description near the scene, and recovered a gun and victim property nearby | Probable cause existed under totality of circumstances; items admissible |
| Show-up identifications (due process / suggestiveness) | Franklin: identifications were impermissibly suggestive (handcuffed, told suspects were apprehended) so should be suppressed | Government: even if show-up was suggestive, identification was reliable given factors (opportunity to view, attention, prior description, certainty, short delay) | Identification admissible — reliable under Biggers factors |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and carjacking (intent element) | Franklin: government failed to prove intent to cause serious harm or that conspiracy specifically aimed to carjack | Government: evidence showed planning, use/pointing of guns, threats, removal of ID, physical control of vehicles — supporting intent and conspiracy objective | Evidence sufficient to support conspiracy and carjacking convictions |
| Sufficiency for § 924(c) and § 922(g)(1) convictions | Franklin: § 924(c) and felon-in-possession convictions fail if carjacking/conspiracy not proven; also contests possession element for § 922(g) | Government: co-conspirator’s use/possession of firearms in presence of Franklin was foreseeable for § 924(c); circumstantial evidence (gun found near where Franklin was detained, both fled in Charger) supports constructive possession for § 922(g) | § 924(c) and § 922(g) convictions supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (defines probable-cause standard for warrantless arrests)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (two-step test for suggestive identifications; reliability inquiry)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identifications)
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) (intent requirement for carjacking; conditional readiness to harm suffices)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (use of circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy)
- United States v. Saunders, 501 F.3d 384 (4th Cir. 2007) (impermissibly suggestive identifications may nonetheless be admissible if reliable)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard)