United States v. Robinson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24521
| 4th Cir. | 2010Background
- Robinson led a crack cocaine distribution network, trafficking drugs for money, sex, and firearms, and was convicted on multiple drug and firearms counts including §924(c) and felon-in-possession, later sentenced to 600 months.
- Investigators included CID, ATF, and Narcotics Division; three controlled buys and associated searches supported the charges; Narcotics Division misconduct was later discovered but not tied to all counts.
- December 2005, August 2006, and September 2006 buys/seizures produced key evidence; the Narcotics Division officers involved later faced separate misconduct findings.
- After discovery of misconduct, Robinson moved for Rule 33 retrial; the district court granted retrials for some counts and denied others, resulting in an appellate challenge.
- Robinson contends for a full Rule 33 retrial and argues Brady suppression; he also challenges §924(c) jury instructions, sufficiency, duplicity, and constructive amendment defenses, all of which the Fourth Circuit rejects in affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 33 retrial scope | Robinson seeks retrial on all counts due to police misconduct | Misconduct affected integrity but not all counts; proper retrial scope limited | No abuse of discretion; not all tainted counts retried; many counts stemmed from separate CID/ATF investigation |
| Brady suppression | Prosecution suppressed misconduct evidence | No Brady violation; imputed knowledge doctrine not applicable | Brady not satisfied; no reasonable probability of acquittal even if suppressed evidence admitted |
| §924(c) jury instruction and sufficiency | Use prong instruction erroneous post-Watson; conviction flawed | Possession prong covers drugs-for-firearms trades; evidence supports conviction | Convictions sustained; possession prong covers trades; no prejudicial error, sufficient evidence |
| Duplicity and constructive amendment | Indictment duplicity and improper broadening via instruction | Jeopardy concerns cured by proper instructions; no constructive amendment | No reversible error; duplicity claim rejected; no constructive amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Custis, 988 F.2d 1355 (4th Cir. 1993) (newly discovered evidence must meet five-factor test to warrant new trial; majority not met here)
- United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rule 33 requires all five Custis factors; here not satisfied for full retrial)
- Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2007) (drug-for-firearm trades not use of firearm under § 924(c) post-Watson; informs plain-error analysis)
- United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 1998) (plain-error prejudice requires showing the erroneous instruction affected the actual conviction)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010) (clarifies the § 924(c) 'except' clause safety-valve interpretation)