United States v. Nicksion
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25128
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Nicksion and Cubie were charged in a drug trafficking conspiracy, with related firearm offenses; trial included evidence tying to a Benion homicide.
- Key witnesses described a murder by Terry for a drug debt, with statements implicating Nicksion; those statements were offered to prove the firearm offense under § 924(c).
- Bonds, Bridges, Palmer testified about Terry's confession; Detective Wagner testified about a possible rental car connection to the homicide.
- Nicksion moved to exclude the inculpatory statements; the government relied on Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and Crawford-based reasoning to admit them.
- Cubie was arrested after a controlled drug buy/payment; officers searched his car, found a gun and drugs; Cubie challenged the stop and search as improper.
- The district court denied Cubie’s suppression motion and admitted co-conspirator statements conditionally; Cubie later pled guilty and preserved sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of homicide-related statements | Government: statements made during conspiracy are admissible under 801(d)(2)(E). | Nicksion: statements are testimonial or otherwise inadmissible under confrontation/hearsay rules. | Admissible; harmless error under § 924(c) evidence; do not prejudice substantial rights. |
| Plain-error review of Wagner testimony about belief regarding rental car | Government: error not preserved, but any error is harmless given other evidence. | Nicksion: admission violated confrontation clause or was prosecutorial error. | Harmless error; other evidence connected car to homicide; errors did not affect substantial rights. |
| Cubie stop and search legality and collective knowledge | Officers had probable cause based on drug transactions and payments; collective knowledge doctrine supports stop/search. | No traffic violation or independent probable cause; search invalid absent consent or Belton/Gant exceptions. | Stop and subsequent search lawful under collective knowledge; search justified by probable cause. |
| Pretrial proffer/hearing on co-conspirator statements | District court could conditionally admit statements with trial-proof later. | Need a pretrial proffer/hearing to assess admissibility. | No abuse of discretion; conditional admission permitted; no harm given later proof. |
| Drug quantity and criminal history at sentencing | Use total weight to determine base offense level; hypotheticals for adjustment may apply. | Contends lower drug quantity and lower history category; argues PSR reliability issues. | Base offense level affirmed at 36 after including 35 g crack; criminal history category upheld; sentence within guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (confrontation clause applies to testimonial hearsay only)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (held confrontation clause applies to forensic reports; testimonial exception narrowed)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause generally limits testimonial statements)
- United States v. Parra, 402 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2005) (collective knowledge doctrine for probable cause)
- United States v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906 (7th Cir. 1992) (mutual imputation of knowledge among officers at a scene)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (automobile exception permits search of vehicle with probable cause)
- United States v. Stotler, 591 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2010) (Gant guidance maintained; Ross remains relevant for automobile searches)
- United States v. Akinrinade, 61 F.3d 1279 (7th Cir. 1995) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Martin, 618 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless error analysis in confrontation clause cases)
- United States v. Sawyer, 558 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2009) (harmless error analysis in hearsay cases)