United States v. McCallum
885 F. Supp. 2d 105
D.D.C.2012Background
- McCallum charged in a two-count superseding indictment with unlawful possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and within 1000 feet of a school.
- McCallum moved for mistrial after government disclosures of witness statements were incomplete prior to defense cross-examination.
- Court granted a mistrial, finding government misconduct not willful, and allowed retrial to proceed.
- Before retrial, Jencks materials and related statements were late disclosed; internal affairs recordings were not disclosed prior to trial.
- Court conducted in camera review of police complaints against two officers; found most complaints immaterial but ordered limited disclosures for three complaints.
- At retrial, government sought to preclude complaints and certain evidence; court reaffirmed denial of suppression and limited cross-examination regarding complaints, with rulings on admissibility deferred pending proffers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy bar after mistrial | McCallum argues retrial barred due to government misconduct provoking mistrial. | McCallum contends Kennedy standard applies; government intended to provoke mistrial. | Retrial permitted; no prosecutorial intent to provoke mistrial found. |
| Reconsideration of suppression ruling | McCallum argues new recordings undermine suppression ruling. | Government argues new evidence does not alter ruling; reconsideration warranted. | Reconsideration granted but suppression denial reaffirmed; new evidence does not change outcome. |
| Admissibility of police complaints on cross-examination | McCallum seeks cross-examination about complaints to show bias. | Complaints lack probative value and risk prejudice; not admissible. | Cross-examination about OPC complaints barred pending update on seven open complaints. |
| Admissibility of opinion and reputation evidence | McCallum seeks opinion/reputation evidence to impeach officers’ truthfulness. | Baseline foundation required; defer ruling without proffers. | Ruling deferred pending specific proffers and foundations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (prosecutor's intent standard for retrial after mistrial)
- United States v. Jamison, 505 F.2d 407 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (mistrial on defendant's motion generally does not bar retrial)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978) (mistrial on defendant's motion not automatically bar retrial)
- United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1976) (double jeopardy protects against government actions intended to provoke mistrial)
- United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (bias and cross-examination caution; prior complaints not automatically probative)