United States v. Shannon Williams
720 F.3d 674
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Shannon Williams led a long-running marijuana-distribution conspiracy and was recorded and investigated through cooperating individuals (Conway) and an informant-attorney (Terry Haddock).
- Haddock, acting as a government informant, visited Williams in the detention center, provided a contraband phone service, assisted in laundering money (turning funds over to law enforcement), and recorded conversations; Haddock repeatedly told Williams he was not Williams's attorney.
- Williams was indicted on conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and money-laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956) counts and convicted by a jury; a criminal forfeiture count sought specific real and tangible property.
- Williams moved to dismiss the indictment or suppress statements, arguing outrageous government conduct (intrusion into attorney–client relationship), involuntary/confession and Sixth Amendment violations from recordings with Conway, and judicial bias at trial; he also raised entrapment and confrontation challenges to fingerprint evidence.
- The district court denied suppression and dismissal motions, admitted fingerprint cards as business records, declined to admit 170 hours of recordings in full, and later granted the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal forfeiture count without prejudice; the government pursued a civil in rem forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government outrageously intruded into an attorney–client relationship by using Haddock | Haddock acted as Williams's lawyer or created the appearance of counsel; statements to Haddock should be suppressed/dismissal warranted | No attorney–client relationship existed; Haddock was informant and Williams never had confidential legal relationship with him | No attorney–client relationship; no outrageous-conduct violation; denial affirmed |
| Voluntariness and waiver: Were statements to Conway coerced or made in violation of Fifth/Sixth Amendments? | Statements to Conway were involuntary and made under coercion/fear; Sixth Amendment counsel right previously asserted | Conway acted as agent but the statements were voluntary; prior invocation in Arizona involved different offenses under Blockburger | Statements voluntary; Fifth Amendment claim fails; Sixth Amendment right not triggered because offenses differ under Blockburger |
| Trial fairness: Did the court’s trial management/comments and exclusion of full audio recordings deprive Williams of a fair trial? | Judge’s comments and refusal to admit all 170 hours biased jury and curtailed defense | Excluding voluminous, duplicative recordings and limiting repetitive pro se examination was proper trial management | No abuse of discretion; exclusion not prejudicial; no reversible bias |
| Forfeiture procedure and double jeopardy: Did failure to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(5)(A) require dismissal with prejudice or bar civil in rem forfeiture? | Rule violation warranted dismissal with prejudice; civil in rem forfeiture is double jeopardy | Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) is a time-related directive (harmless/curable); Rule 48(a) dismissal without prejudice was proper; civil forfeiture is not punitive | Denial of dismissal with prejudice affirmed; dismissal without prejudice permissible; civil forfeiture not barred by double jeopardy (Ursery) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (outrageous government conduct standard under due process)
- United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050 (3d Cir. 1996) (three-prong test for intrusion into attorney–client relationship)
- United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2011) (classification of Rule 32.2 deadlines as time-related directive)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (testimonial forensic reports and Confrontation Clause concerns)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (requirement that the analyst who generated testimonial forensic report testify)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether offenses are the same for Sixth Amendment attachment)
- United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996) (civil in rem forfeiture is not punishment for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes)
- United States v. Singer, 710 F.2d 431 (8th Cir. 1983) (examples of judicial conduct that can require reversal)