United States v. Jonathan Butler
496 F. App'x 158
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Butler was convicted after a jury trial of willfully interfering with an aircraft operator (18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5)) and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Police recovered a hot pistol on Butler at arrest following a pursuit with a police helicopter and searchlight.
- Before trial, counsel Santaguida stated to police and a magistrate that Butler fired but did not intend to hit the helicopter; he later withdrew and Butler was represented by new counsel.
- The government sought to admit Santaguida’s statements only if Butler presented an inconsistent defense; the district court allowed hypothetical admissibility, but the statements were never admitted at trial.
- Butler chose not to testify and did not present a defense inconsistent with Santaguida’s statements; thus the statements were never introduced.
- Butler appeals, challenging: (1) admissibility ruling on counsel’s statements, (2) the § 924(c) conviction as legally possible given § 32(a)(5) is not a crime of violence, and (3) the jury instruction on mens rea for § 32(a)(5) claiming recklessness could satisfy the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of counsel's prior statements under 801(d)(2)(D) | Butler's counsel's statements were admissible as party admissions by an agent. | Such statements are privilege-bound and should not be admitted; risk to attorney-client relationship. | District court did not abuse discretion; statements admissible under 801(d)(2)(D). |
| Whether § 32(a)(5) is a crime of violence for § 924(c) purposes | Underlying offense qualifies as a crime of violence, supporting § 924(c) conviction. | § 32(a)(5) is not a crime of violence; conviction should fail. | § 32(a)(5) qualifies as a crime of violence; no error. |
| Plain error in jury instruction on mens rea for § 32(a)(5) | Reckless standard could satisfy willfulness under § 32(a)(5). | Instruction improperly lowered mens rea; should require willfulness. | No reversible plain error; instruction adequate given elements and verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility of evidence)
- United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758 (3d Cir. 2000) (guides evidentiary admissibility concerns)
- United States v. Catena, 500 F.2d 1319 (3d Cir. 1974) (statements by counsel within scope of authority admissible under prior law)
- United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1984) (statements of counsel in open record arguments consequences)
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261 (1880) (any fact admitted by counsel may ground court procedure)
- United States v. Harris, 914 F.2d 927 (7th Cir. 1990) (attorney-client relationship caution in admissibility)
- United States v. Parson, 955 F.2d 858 (3d Cir. 1992) (crime of violence considerations for § 16/§ 924(c) context)
- United States v. Amato, 356 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2004) (interpretation of related mens rea and evidence standards)
- Aguilar v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 663 F.3d 692 (3d Cir. 2011) (definition of crime of violence for § 924(c) guidance)
- United States v. Xavier, 2 F.3d 1281 (3d Cir. 1993) (prejudice considerations in plain error review)
- United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2005) (plain error standard in criminal appeals)
- Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1989) (plain error review framework)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard and substantial rights)
- United States v. Johnson, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error review considerations)
- United States v. Aguilar, 663 F.3d 692 (3d Cir. 2011) (crime of violence analysis for § 924(c))