United States v. Richard Klemis
859 F.3d 436
7th Cir.2017Background
- Richard Klemis sold heroin (and marijuana) to teenagers and young adults from his home and via an associate; one customer overdosed but survived, another (Tyler McKinney, 19) fatally overdosed after receiving heroin from Klemis.
- Klemis was indicted on nine federal counts including conspiracy, multiple distributions to persons under 21, use of a minor in a drug operation, and distribution resulting in death/serious injury; tried by jury over seven days and convicted on all counts.
- The government presented extensive evidence: witness testimony from law enforcement, paramedics, medical experts (toxicologist and autopsy), co-conspirator Christopher Gonzales, multiple young customers, phone/text records, and admissions by Klemis to several witnesses.
- Evidence tying Klemis to McKinney’s death included texts/phone logs showing a heroin transfer shortly before death, multiple witnesses who saw Klemis supply or inject McKinney, and expert testimony that McKinney died of a heroin overdose.
- During trial, Juror 28 disclosed a brother with longstanding addiction but affirmed she could be fair; the prosecutor’s closing invoked Dante’s Inferno (placing Klemis in the innermost circle), stated “heroin kills,” and called a witness a “straight citizen.”
- Post-conviction, Klemis appealed raising prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence on the death-related distribution count, hearsay/Confrontation problems with two witnesses’ testimony about McKinney’s statements, and juror bias; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Klemis’ Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument: Dante rhetoric, “heroin kills,” vouching for witness) | Closing was inflammatory, appealed to passion, and vouched for a witness, depriving him of a fair trial | Remarks were either improper but harmless given strong evidence, or permissible inferences from evidence; judge instructed jury; no objection at trial | No reversible error — Dante rhetoric improper but not prejudicial; other remarks permissible or supported by evidence (plain-error review) |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: distribution causing McKinney’s death | Argues medical evidence shows cause was acute morphine intoxication, not heroin, so government failed to prove heroin caused death | Heroin metabolizes to morphine; toxicologist and pathologist linked heroin to death; texts/admits connect Klemis to supplied heroin | Conviction upheld — evidence sufficient to link Klemis-provided heroin to McKinney’s fatal overdose |
| Admissibility / Confrontation Clause (statements McKinney made to Singleton and Libbra about owing Klemis money) | Testimony was hearsay/testimonial and violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; should be excluded | Statements were nontestimonial (made to private persons), admissible as statements against interest with corroboration; trial objection under hearsay preserved, Confrontation claim forfeited | No plain error — statements were nontestimonial and admissible under Rule 804(b)(3); not unfairly prejudicial given corroboration and weight of evidence |
| Juror bias (Juror 28 disclosed brother’s addiction) | Juror’s personal experience with addiction made her incapable of impartiality; trial fairness compromised | Juror gave unequivocal assurances she could be fair; judge found her credible; no timely challenge was made | No plain error — juror’s unequivocal, credible assurances satisfied impartiality requirement; challenge forfeited when not raised at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (standard for plain-error review)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process framework)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause testimonial-statement rule)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (statements to non-law-enforcement less likely to be testimonial)
- United States v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing permissible credibility comments from improper vouching)
- United States v. Ramirez-Fuentes, 703 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard for forfeited Rule 403 objections)