United States v. Patterson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6967
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Patterson was convicted by jury of cocaine conspiracy and related charges; he challenges pretrial, trial, and sentencing rulings on appeal.
- DEA investigated Bernard Redd for cocaine distribution; wiretaps linked Redd to Smart and to Patterson, leading to Patterson’s indictment.
- Redd and Patterson are cousins; Smart and Bradley testified as cooperating witnesses.
- Evidence included wiretaps, code-word interpretations by agents, and jailhouse informant Sajcha Hobbs.
- Patterson was initially tried with Redd; Redd pleaded guilty; Smart and Bradley testified; Patterson was convicted and sentenced to 160 months.
- The court held a James hearing to determine conspiracy and admissibility of co-conspirator statements; key testimony came from Agent Smith and cooperating witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency hearing denial proper? | Patterson argues reasonable cause existed for a competency hearing. | District court should have ordered evaluation based on ADD and incoherent pro se filing. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | James hearing established conspiracy; sufficient evidence to convict Patterson. | Evidence did not prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient; conspiracy proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Confrontation Clause and co-conspirator statements | Admission violated Crawford and Bruton. | Statements were nontestimonial as in furtherance of conspiracy. | No Crawford/Bruton violation; statements admitted under co-conspirator hearsay exception. |
| Judge’s trial conduct and alleged coercive remarks | Court comments about scheduling coerced jurors. | Allen-charge-like coercion. | No plain error; conduct not coercive. |
| Indictment sufficiency | Indictment lacked sufficient start dates for conspiracies. | Superseding indictment provided dates for most counts; sufficiency maintained. | Indictment sufficient; no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2010) (factors for competency determination; district court discretion emphasized)
- United States v. Landers, 564 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2009) (denying competency hearing based on demeanor and record)
- United States v. Pompey, 264 F.3d 1176 (2d Cir. 2001) (post-evaluation factors for competency determinations)
- United States v. Cornejo-Sandoval, 564 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2009) (district court’s demeanor-based competency assessment)
- United States v. Urena, 27 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir. 1994) (co-conspirator statements; Rule 801(d)(2)(E) criteria)
- United States v. Hernandez, 509 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements of conspiracy and interdependence standard for sufficiency)