United States v. Melvin Taplet, Jr.
776 F.3d 875
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Taplet was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 for soliciting murder-for-hire after contacting an ICE informant (Jerome Thomas) who posed as a hitman; Taplet gave addresses, a photo, and arranged meetings and payment-related welding services.
- The government relied on telephone calls and interstate movements (Taplet traveled to Maryland and D.C.) and undercover meetings to prove use of a facility of interstate commerce.
- Taplet moved multiple times to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act (STA); the district court denied those motions and tried the case on February 14, 2011; Taplet did not pursue a constitutional speedy-trial claim below.
- At trial Taplet sought acquittal on grounds of manufactured jurisdiction and requested a special jury instruction excluding consideration of government-agent conduct; both were denied and the jury convicted him.
- The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 262–327 months but imposed a 10-year statutory-maximum sentence; Taplet objected to the court’s handling of his allocution and to sentencing reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Speedy Trial Act (70-day) violation occurred | Taplet: cumulative non-excludable delays exceeded 70 days (identified several periods) | Government: many periods were excludable; Taplet waived challenges to some periods by failing to raise/renew them | Court held Taplet waived challenges to specific periods by not raising them pretrial; no STA violation established |
| Whether Taplet forfeited constitutional speedy-trial claim | Taplet: post-arraignment delay violated Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial | Government: claim not raised below; review only for plain error | Court found no plain error—no constitutional violation given defendant’s conduct and lack of prejudice |
| Whether government manufactured federal jurisdiction/interstate-commerce element | Taplet: informant induced interstate travel, so jurisdiction was manufactured (Archer) | Government: telephone use plus voluntary interstate acts by Taplet sufficed; he freely participated | Court held telephone calls and voluntary travel were sufficient; manufactured-jurisdiction claim rejected |
| Whether jury instruction should exclude agent-induced acts and whether sentencing/allocution errors occurred | Taplet: jury should consider only his independent acts; court cut off allocution and misweighed Guidelines | Government: statute covers use or causing another to use interstate facilities; judge properly limited irrelevant allocution and explained sentencing | Court rejected special-instruction request (statute includes causing another); upheld court limiting allocution and sentencing explanation as adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074 (D.C. Cir.) (standards for STA review)
- United States v. Marshall, 669 F.3d 288 (D.C. Cir.) (government evidentiary filings under Rules 404(b)/609 not STA pretrial motions)
- United States v. Van Smith, 530 F.3d 967 (D.C. Cir.) (exclusions for motions and time under advisement)
- United States v. Harris, 491 F.3d 440 (D.C. Cir.) (defendant oppositions count as pretrial motions for STA)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (U.S. 2006) (policy on defendant’s role in raising STA claims)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (constitutional speedy-trial test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (presumptive prejudice from prolonged delay)
- United States v. Weathers, 169 F.3d 336 (6th Cir.) (telephones as instrumentalities of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.) (manufactured jurisdiction doctrine)