530 F. App'x 143
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Arrington was convicted after a jury trial on federal drug conspiracy charges alleging he supplied heroin to co-conspirators including Omar Davenport.
- Davenport testified Arrington visited weekly and delivered heroin to the living room while Davenport’s girlfriend, Bobbie Sue Miller, was likely in the bedroom and not in the room during deliveries.
- Miller testified she twice saw Arrington deliver drugs to Davenport and observed money and a package exchanged in the living room.
- After federal arrests of co-conspirators in Feb. 2009, Arrington, who was on state parole, missed parole hearings, was declared a fugitive, and was later arrested in Baltimore under an alias.
- The Government sought to introduce Arrington’s parole absconding as consciousness-of-guilt evidence; the district court admitted it with a limiting instruction. Arrington objected at trial to both the failure to correct alleged perjury and to the parole-evidence admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct for not correcting allegedly inconsistent testimony | Arrington: Government should have corrected or exposed Miller’s alleged perjury and vouching for inconsistent testimony required vacatur | Government: No due process violation; inconsistencies were highlighted by defense and do not show material, willful perjury known to prosecutors | No plain-error relief. Court held no due process violation because perjury not shown and inconsistencies were used by defense to impeach credibility |
| Admissibility of parole-absconding evidence as consciousness of guilt | Arrington: Evidence of absconding is unfairly prejudicial and improperly shows propensity to commit crimes | Government: Evidence admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403 to show consciousness of guilt; district court gave limiting instruction | No abuse of discretion. Court affirmed admission for limited purpose (consciousness of guilt) with jury instruction; probative value outweighed prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brennan, 326 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2003) (plain-error review where issues not preserved at trial)
- United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2008) (elements for due process violation premised on government witness perjury)
- Dunnigan v. United States, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (definition of perjury requiring willful false testimony on a material matter)
- United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (Rule 404(b) evidence admissible for non-propensity purposes if probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice)