United States v. Reginald Braddy
16-2701
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Braddy and Horton were tried and convicted for a drug-trafficking conspiracy (meth, cocaine, heroin); Horton also convicted under § 841. Both appealed multiple rulings.
- Government used court-authorized wiretaps; defendants moved to suppress and sought a Franks hearing alleging false statements in wiretap affidavits. District Court denied suppression and Franks hearing.
- At trial, three confidential informants testified about purchases, shipments, money flows, and Braddy–Horton coordination; phone/text evidence corroborated communications.
- During cross-examination, a law enforcement witness mistakenly referenced an exhibit another witness would present; Braddy moved for a mistrial, which the District Court denied.
- After conviction, defendants challenged sufficiency of the evidence (Braddy) and quantity attribution at sentencing (Horton). District Court attributed ~18,265 kg (conspiracy-wide) and imposed 235–240 months for Braddy and 188–225 months for Horton. Appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of wiretap evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c) | Gov’t: wiretaps were necessary to uncover full scope of conspiracy | Defs: traditional techniques already succeeded; wiretaps not necessary | Affirmed — wiretaps permissible to reveal full scope; affidavits showed traditional techniques tried/ineffective or dangerous |
| Entitlement to Franks hearing | Defs: affidavits contained knowingly false or reckless statements (inconsistent reports re: informant knowledge, addresses, accounts) | Gov’t: inconsistencies not shown to be intentional/reckless or outcome-determinative | Affirmed — defendants failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing |
| Motion for mistrial after witness’s remark about another exhibit | Braddy: comment improperly hedged future testimony and undermined cross-examination; Boyce-like vouching merits mistrial | Gov’t: no prosecutorial vouching; remark corrected and not addressed to jury | Affirmed — no Boyce-type misconduct; denial of mistrial proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence & sentencing quantity attribution | Braddy: only buyer–seller relationships; insufficient proof of conspiracy; Horton: should be sentenced only for drugs he personally handled | Gov’t: evidence of joint undertaking, shared purpose, shipments, money transfers made large-quantity attribution foreseeable | Affirmed — sufficient evidence of conspiracy; sentencing attribution to conspiracy-wide quantity and credibility-based reliance on informants upheld; Braddy’s longer sentence reasonable given role and Guidelines adjustments |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99 (3d Cir.) (wiretaps may be used to uncover full scope of a conspiracy)
- United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838 (3d Cir. 1976) (wiretap instrumentalities appropriate where traditional techniques insufficient)
- United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3d Cir. 1997) (affidavit assertions may rely on trained agents’ experience)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (preliminary showing required for evidentiary hearing on false affidavit statements)
- United States v. Boyce, 849 F.2d 833 (3d Cir. 1988) (impropriety where prosecutor vouches by promising to produce evidence in front of jury)
- United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2002) (defendant accountable for reasonably foreseeable quantities in jointly undertaken criminal activity)
- United States v. Freeman, 763 F.3d 322 (3d Cir. 2014) (sentencing evidence must have indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Hart, 273 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2001) (no constitutional right to sentence equality among co-defendants)