United States v. Scott Adkins
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1876
7th Cir.2014Background
- In January 2009 customs intercepted a package from Canada to Nathaniel Jordan containing two stuffed snowmen whose hidden pellets field-tested positive for narcotics; laboratory testing later confirmed ~299.7 grams of heroin. The actual heroin was destroyed before trial by mistake.
- A customs agent posed as a UPS driver and delivered the rewrapped package to Jordan’s home; Jordan signed for it. Adkins handled/opened the package in Jordan’s room, took out a snowman, said “We’ve got some goodies,” and agents then entered after a transmitter alerted.
- Agents found drug scales and baggies in the bedroom and two handguns in Adkins’ basement bedroom; Adkins’ passport, a bus itinerary to Toronto dated Jan 21, and a Western Union receipt for $75 were found in the living room.
- Adkins was convicted by jury of attempting to possess heroin with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of firearms; separately he pled guilty to receipt of child pornography and received 210 months (child porn) + 90 months (drugs/guns) with 12 months consecutive, totaling 222 months.
- On appeal Adkins challenged evidentiary rulings (Canada-trip materials), jury instructions, prosecutor statements, denial of mistrial after an improper question, sentencing guideline calculations (acceptance reduction), failure to submit drug-quantity to the jury (Apprendi/Alleyne issues), and a supervised-release condition banning viewing/listening to “pornography or sexually stimulating material.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Canada-trip evidence (passport, ticket, Western Union) | Trip evidence was prior-bad-acts/404(b) and unduly prejudicial; should be excluded | Evidence was direct: showed knowledge, intent, preparation, and motive for receiving that specific heroin shipment | Admissible; court treated it as direct evidence of intent/knowledge and not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403/404(b) |
| Jury instructions / constructive amendment (date & attempt act) | Instruction permitted conviction based on the Canada trip eight days earlier (amending indictment) | Instructions matched indictment’s “on or about” language and evidence of Jan 29 acts supported conviction | No constructive amendment; plain-error review showed no reasonable likelihood of altered outcome |
| Prosecutorial misconduct: improper question about prior smuggling and improper vouching in rebuttal | Question and prosecutor’s vouching prejudiced verdict; court should have ordered mistrial or reversal | Court cured the improper question by striking it and giving limiting instruction; vouching was improper but harmless given weight of evidence and curative instruction | No reversible error: striking/limiting instruction was adequate for the improper question; vouching was improper but did not deprive defendant of fair trial under five-factor test |
| Sentencing: guidelines acceptance-reduction in hypothetical combined calculation | District court erred by awarding only 2-level rather than 3-level acceptance reduction in alternate hypothetical, affecting advisory range | A 3-level reduction wouldn’t apply because defendant pleaded guilty to only child-porn charge; government still would have had to prepare for trial on the other counts | Affirmed: district court’s interpretation consistent with §3E1.1; circuit authority supports denying 3-level reduction where defendant doesn’t plead to all charged conduct |
| Apprendi/Alleyne: jury did not find drug quantity | Failure to submit quantity to jury violates Apprendi/Alleyne; requires reversal/remand | Government conceded jury-quantity error but argued plain-error review and that evidence unambiguously supported the quantity used at sentencing | Plain-error review; no reversal because overwhelming evidence supported ~299.7 g and a properly instructed jury would have found quantity beyond statutory thresholds |
| Special Condition Five of supervised release (ban on viewing/listening to "pornography or sexually stimulating material") & appeal waiver | Condition is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad; appeal waiver should not bar review of an obviously vague due-process violation | Government argued waiver bars appeal or condition can be cured by limiting construction | Vacated and remanded: court found a due-process exception to appeal waivers for obvious vagueness; Special Condition Five is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad and must be redrafted or narrowed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 604 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir.) (evidentiary-ruling abuse-of-discretion standard)
- United States v. Coté, 504 F.3d 682 (7th Cir.) (attempt requires specific intent)
- United States v. Ciesiolka, 614 F.3d 347 (7th Cir.) (Rule 403 analysis may require detail)
- United States v. Akinrinade, 61 F.3d 1279 (7th Cir.) (timing of limiting instructions)
- United States v. Curry, 538 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.) (district court discretion to give limiting instruction vs. mistrial)
- United States v. Harris, 325 F.3d 865 (7th Cir.) (striking testimony + limiting instruction can cure prejudice)
- United States v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir.) (standards for prosecutorial vouching and plain-error review)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S.) (plain-error framework)
- Apprendi v. United States, 530 U.S. 446 (U.S.) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S.) (Apprendi extended to mandatory minima)
- United States v. Kirklin, 727 F.3d 711 (7th Cir.) (Apprendi/Alleyne plain-error discussion)
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (vacating vague/overbroad supervised-release pornography condition)
- United States v. Schave, 186 F.3d 839 (7th Cir.) (can construe or limit vague conditions in some circumstances)