United States v. Rodney Williamson
706 F.3d 405
4th Cir.2013Background
- Williamson was convicted in 2007 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; the government introduced a post-indictment informant recording at trial.
- Initially, the Fourth Circuit held the recording did not violate the Sixth Amendment, but the Supreme Court later vacated and remanded to reconsider in light of the government’s changed position.
- On remand, the district court conducted a Fifth Amendment voluntariness hearing and found the statements voluntary; Williamson appealed.
- During proceedings, Williamson sought a Rule 33 new-trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence and requested counsel; the district court denied.
- This consolidated appeal addresses (i) Sixth Amendment counsel attachment and plain error, (ii) Fifth Amendment voluntariness, and (iii) Rule 33 counsel rights; the court affirms.
- The opinion confirms the conviction and the denial of the new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment: counsel attachment at indictment and plain error | Williamson (Sixth) | Government (Sixth) | Plain error not shown to affect outcome |
| Fifth Amendment voluntariness of recorded statements | Williamson | Alberty/State | Statements voluntary; no Fifth Amendment violation |
| Rule 33 new-trial and Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Williamson (counsel required) | No right to counsel in collateral Rule 33 | No Sixth Amendment right to counsel for collateral Rule 33 motion |
| Characterization of Rule 33 proceedings post-appeal as collateral | Williamson | Collateral attack not part of direct appeal | Rule 33 motions filed after appeal are collateral; no direct-appeal counsel right |
| Consolidation and appointment of counsel at district level | Williamson | District court may appoint counsel under §3006A | Court's appointment discretion not reached on Sixth Amendment grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1964) ( Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to deliberate elicitation after indictment)
- Braxton v. United States, 112 F.3d 777 (4th Cir. 1997) (voluntariness standard under totality of circumstances)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error framework for reviewing forfeited errors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (four-prong plain-error test; disturbances to fairness require error affecting outcome)
- Kitchen v. United States, 227 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2000) (post-appeal Rule 33 motions collateral; no Sixth Amendment right to counsel)