United States v. Melvin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19169
1st Cir.2013Background
- Feb 19, 2010 controlled buy: cooperating witness Williams made a recorded call to arrange a crack sale; undercover surveillance videotaped a hand-to-hand exchange in a parking lot.
- Melvin was later identified in a photo array by Williams and indicted for possession with intent to distribute; Melvin attended a government-drafted proffer session and signed a written proffer agreement.
- The proffer agreement promised the government would not use any "statements made or other information" disclosed at the proffer session against Melvin in its case-in-chief (except for impeachment/derivative use).
- At trial the government called Officer Mazza to testify he learned Melvin’s voice at the proffer and could identify Melvin as a participant on the recorded pre-buy telephone call; court admitted the testimony despite defense objection.
- Jury convicted Melvin; on appeal he argued (1) photo-array was suggestive, (2) Williams’s testimony tainted by a contingent-payment arrangement, and (3) admission of Mazza’s voice ID violated the proffer agreement and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of voice identification from proffer | Government: proffer protected statements but not voice characteristics; Mazza’s ID was permissible | Melvin: proffer barred use of any "statements or other information" learned at proffer (including voice) against him | Court: proffer language covers "other information" (including voice); admission violated agreement and due process; error requires reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Harmless-error standard | Government: error is non-constitutional so Kotteakos standard applies | Melvin: breach of proffer implicates due process; Chapman standard applies | Court: breach implicates constitutional due process; Chapman standard (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt) applies; government failed to meet it |
| Photo-array suggestiveness | Government: array not impermissibly suggestive | Melvin: two photos were closer-up making array suggestive | Court: array differences minor; no substantial likelihood of misidentification; motion to suppress properly denied |
| Credibility issue from witness bounty | Government: prosecutor corrected arrangement and disclosed to defense; safeguards sufficient | Melvin: Williams’s contingent-payment belief fatally tainted testimony | Court: prosecutor’s timely disavowal, disclosure, cross-examination, and jury instructions cured due-process concern; testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rivera-Rivera, 555 F.3d 277 (1st Cir.) (photo-array suppression standard)
- United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir.) (reliability inquiry for identifications)
- United States v. Dailey, 759 F.2d 192 (1st Cir.) (safeguards for cooperative-witness arrangements; condemnation of conviction-contingent bounties)
- United States v. Cresta, 825 F.2d 538 (1st Cir.) (disapproving bounty arrangements)
- United States v. Hogan, 862 F.2d 386 (1st Cir.) (proffer agreements interpreted as contracts)
- United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (voice exemplar/compulsion discussion referenced by government)
- United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing direct vs. derivative use of proffered information)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S.) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)