United States v. Michael Katzin
707 F. App'x 116
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Katzin was arrested after a Rite Aid burglary (Hamburg, PA); GPS evidence and burglary tools linked him and his brothers to the crime. Katzin went to trial and was convicted on four federal counts: pharmacy burglary and possession with intent to distribute, plus two conspiracy counts (to commit pharmacy burglary and to possess with intent to distribute).
- A superseding indictment added two conspiracy counts and alleged an earlier related attempted burglary in Feasterville-Trevose; the district court treated evidence of that incident as intrinsic to the conspiracy (not Rule 404(b) other‑acts evidence) and admitted it.
- Shortly before trial the defense disclosed expert testimony (Dr. O’Brien) asserting Katzin was incapacitated by Xanax and opioids and had slept through the Hamburg burglary; the disclosure and report were provided eight days before trial.
- The district court excluded the expert testimony on substantive (FRE 704(b), 403) and procedural (Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 and 16) grounds, principally because the Rule 12.2/16 disclosures were untimely (pretrial deadlines had passed).
- Katzin testified at trial claiming he slept through the burglary; the jury convicted on all counts. At sentencing the court applied a two‑level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on the court’s finding that Katzin gave perjurious trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of grand jury evidence for conspiracy counts | Government: indictment was valid; grand jury was properly constituted | Katzin: grand jury record lacked evidence to support conspiracy counts; indictment should be struck | Court: declined to probe grand jury sufficiency; indictment facially sufficient and dismissal not warranted |
| Prosecutorial motive in adding conspiracy counts | Government: may add charges pretrial absent actual vindictiveness | Katzin: superseding indictment was improper retaliation to evade Rule 404 and to transform other‑acts into intrinsic evidence | Court: no evidence of actual vindictiveness; adding charges allowed pretrial; claim fails |
| Sufficiency of trial evidence for conspiracy | Government: evidence (Feasterville facts, tools, same actors, Hamburg burglary items) supports conspiracy verdict | Katzin: evidence insufficient to link incidents into a single conspiracy | Court: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, jury rationally could find conspiracy; conviction affirmed |
| Exclusion of expert intoxication testimony (Rule 12.2/16) | Katzin: late disclosure excused because defense only learned of intoxication defense late; expert testimony admissible | Government: disclosure was untimely; Rule 12.2/16 required earlier notice; expert report prejudicial and hearsay | Court: Rule 12.2 applies to voluntary intoxication; district court did not abuse discretion excluding expert for untimely notice |
| Sentencing obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 | Katzin: enhancement improper if based on late disclosures; if based on perjury court failed to make required findings | Government: enhancement supported by perjury at trial and district court’s observations | Court: district court permissibly relied on perjury as basis for enhancement; perjury finding not clearly erroneous; any failure to make explicit findings reviewed for plain error and not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (indictment valid on its face is enough to call for trial)
- United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir.) (standard for review of motions to dismiss indictments)
- United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418 (3d Cir.) (deferential sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard on appeal)
- United States v. Palmeri, 630 F.2d 192 (3d Cir.) (overt acts establishing conspiracy need not be illegal themselves)
- United States v. Scott, 223 F.3d 208 (3d Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for exclusion of expert testimony)
- United States v. Olson, 576 F.2d 1267 (8th Cir.) (applying Rule 12.2 to testimony about alcohol's effect on mental capacity)
- United States v. Cervone, 907 F.2d 332 (2d Cir.) (applying Rule 12.2 to voluntary intoxication defense)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (perjury standard for applying obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.) (preservation and plain‑error standards at sentencing)
- United States v. Napolitan, 762 F.3d 297 (3d Cir.) (perjury definition under § 3C1.1)