United States v. Maurice Maxwell
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14825
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Maxwell was charged with possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- Nied, a Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory forensic scientist, analyzed the seized substance and prepared a report confirming cocaine base; he had retired by trial.
- Gee, another Wisconsin lab scientist, testified that the substance contained cocaine base after re-reviewing Nied’s data, but she did not perform the primary analysis.
- Maxwell did not object to Gee’s testimony at trial and proceeded to trial pro se with standby counsel.
- The defense focused on lack of intent to distribute; the government sought to prove possession with intent via Gee’s testimony.
- Post-trial, Maxwell raised Confrontation Clause and FSA-based sentencing issues; the court sentenced him to 144 months, and the court later ordered a limited Paladino remand on the FSA issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation | Maxwell argues Gee’s reliance on Nied’s data violated confrontation rights. | Maxwell contends admission was error because Nied’s data not testified to. | No plain error; testimony admissible under Turner/Moon guidance. |
| Remand for Fair Sentencing Act application | FSA lowers maximums; Maxwell is entitled to resentencing if applicable. | District court could have imposed same sentence; no plain error shown. | Limited Paladino remand ordered to determine resentencing scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 2009) (forbids using lab reports as evidence without live testimony)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court, 2011) (forensic reports require live witness for confrontation)
- Turner v. United States, 709 F.3d 1187 (7th Cir., 2013) (expert may rely on data from another analyst)
- Moon v. Maryland, 512 F.3d 361 (7th Cir., 2008) (data need not be admissible for expert opinion when used under Rule 703)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (Supreme Court, 2012) (confrontation concerns unresolved post Williams)
- Garvey v. United States, 688 F.3d 881 (7th Cir., 2012) (plain-error review for confrontation claims)
- Paladino v. United States, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir., 2005) (limited remand procedure for FSA-related resentencing)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (Supreme Court, 2012) (FSA penalties apply to 2010 amendments if after August 3, 2010)
- Fisher v. United States, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir., 2011) (FSA applicability during sentencing context)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court, 1993) (plain error standard of review)