United States v. Micah Israel
662 F. App'x 382
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Confidential informant Christopher Jordan (on supervised release) arranged to front what he said were four kilograms of cocaine to co-worker Emmanuel Chenault, who agreed to sell them and reimburse $30,500 per brick plus a $2,500 kickback.
- The "bricks" were actually wooden two-by-fours disguised to appear as cocaine; the transaction was monitored by undercover police.
- Chenault met Jordan in a mall parking lot, took the four faux bricks without inspecting them, drove to Micah Israel’s home, spent several minutes inside, and left with a white bag; officers later stopped Chenault and seized $35,000 and three fake bricks.
- Israel was observed agitated at his home, fled in a slow-speed chase when officers attempted to detain him, and instructed his girlfriend to dispose of items in the bathroom; police found drug paraphernalia, a firearm, and a cut fake brick outside his property.
- A grand jury indicted both defendants for attempted possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine; juries convicted both. Chenault received 120 months; Israel, a career offender, received 420 months.
- On appeal, Chenault challenged sufficiency of evidence for attempt; Israel challenged denial of substitute counsel, denial of severance, denial of a Franks hearing, and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted possession with intent to distribute (Chenault) | Evidence (agreement price, sale to Israel for $35,000, recorded conversations, surveillance, evasive driving, Chenault’s possession of cash) shows intent and substantial step | Chenault: bricks were wood, he intended to rip off Israel; money never exchanged with Jordan; no inspection/testing | Conviction affirmed — circumstantial evidence (price, conduct, statements) supports intent and a substantial step. |
| Denial of substitute counsel (Israel) | Court: request untimely, complaints about doctored documents unfounded, communication breakdown attributable to Israel | Israel: counsel altered discovery and documents; requested new counsel two weeks before trial | Denial affirmed — district court’s inquiry and findings proper; factors (timeliness, communication, public interest) support denial. |
| Failure to sever joint trial (Israel) | Joint trial did not prejudice Israel; evidence against Israel was independent | Israel: Chenault’s counsel’s opening and questioning labeled Israel a drug dealer and implicated him, requiring severance | No plain error — statements were not evidence and did not create specific prejudice preventing reliable verdict. |
| Denial of Franks hearing (Israel) | Affidavit included Detective Page’s statement that he “believed” money was in the bag; trial testimony softened to “could be,” allegedly material falsehood | Israel: discrepancy was material and required hearing to challenge probable cause | Denial affirmed — no allegation of intentional or reckless falsehood and abundant other affidavit facts supported probable cause. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 420-month sentence (Israel) | Sentence within Guidelines range; district court balanced §3553(a) factors and emphasized public protection given recidivism | Israel: sentence arbitrary; court impermissibly relied on leniency of prior sentences and generalized deterrence theory | Sentence affirmed — within Guidelines and district court provided reasoned, individualized §3553(a) analysis; consideration of prior lenient punishment is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mack, 808 F.3d 1074 (6th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- United States v. Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 1999) (elements for attempt: intent and substantial step)
- United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1984) (objective conduct must unequivocally corroborate intent in attempt cases)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (Rule 14 severance standard: prejudice preventing reliable jury verdict)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for a hearing when warrant affidavit contains knowingly or recklessly false statements)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentences and §3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)