United States v. Marlon Haight
892 F.3d 1271
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Police informant Blaine Proctor identified "Boo" as Marlon Haight after controlled buys; officers linked the phone number and photo to Haight.
- A search of an apartment used to sell/process cocaine yielded drugs, a scale, packaging, a loaded gun, ammunition, cash, and a cell phone showing Haight; a window screen was pushed out and a separate phone on the sill had been purchased by Haight.
- Haight was later arrested; police searched a backpack carried by his girlfriend and found several pounds of marijuana, Haight’s employment papers, and handwritten rap lyrics/skit bearing Haight’s name expressing intent to sell in Lincoln Heights.
- Jury convicted Haight on multiple drug- and gun-related counts; District Court sentenced him to 12 years 8 months after ruling one prior conviction did not qualify under ACCA.
- Haight appealed: (1) denial of a further continuance; (2) two evidentiary rulings admitting (a) Officer LeBoo’s testimony recounting Proctor’s pretrial ID and (b) the handwritten writings; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for not using a handwriting expert. Government cross-appealed sentencing under ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Haight's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance denial | Needed more time to consult a handwriting expert and address writings; trial unfair without delay | Court had already granted three delays; additional delay unwarranted | District Court did not abuse discretion in denying further continuance |
| Admissibility of Officer LeBoo’s testimony recounting Proctor’s out-of-court ID | Testimony was inadmissible hearsay | Testimony falls within non-hearsay prior-identification exception (Rule 801(d)(1)(C)); declarant testified at trial | Admission was proper; alternatively any error was harmless |
| Admissibility of handwritten writings from backpack | Writings not properly authenticated; impermissible prior-act (404(b)); prejudicial under Rule 403 | Writings sufficiently authenticated by context and Haight’s name/papers; admissible for identity, knowledge, intent; probative value outweighed prejudice | District Court did not abuse discretion admitting the writings |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain handwriting expert | Counsel’s failure deprived Haight of constitutional assistance | Requires factual development to assess strategy; not conclusively deficient on record | Remanded to District Court to address ineffective assistance claim in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gantt, 140 F.3d 249 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review for scheduling/continuances)
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (when declarant is on the stand, prior-identification testimony can be non-hearsay)
- United States v. Foster, 652 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2011) (meaningful opportunity to cross-examine suffices under Rule 801)
- United States v. Mejia, 597 F.3d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (authentication via context and possession supports admissibility)
- United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (proper purposes for admitting other-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims are best developed in district court)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for prior offenses under ACCA)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (defining crimes that qualify as violent felonies)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (‘‘physical force’’ means violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Castleman v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (no distinction between direct and indirect use of physical force)
- Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) (reckless use of force can satisfy statutes requiring the use of physical force)
- United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (remand routine for ineffective-assistance claims when record is insufficient)