United States v. Smith
395 U.S. App. D.C. 95
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- FBI used court-approved electronic surveillance on Smith and Glover's heroin distribution; 2007 takedown yielded 316 grams heroin, two firearms, and $27,730 in Smith's home.
- Smith was indicted on conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute heroin, felon in possession of a firearm, and using a firearm during a drug offense; conspiracy carrying a 20-year mandatory minimum due to prior drug felony conviction.
- Government introduced redacted letters from a New York clerk stating Smith had a felony conviction to prove felon-in-possession; clerk did not testify.
- Agent Bevington testified on slang meanings (lay witness) and stated that Smith and Glover were working together to buy heroin; testimony challenged as improper overview and lay expert issues.
- A former Park Police officer testified about a 2004 traffic stop mentioning “two large bundles” near a gun; district court instructed to focus on the weapon only.
- Judgment: 25-year total sentence; vacatur of felon-in-possession conviction on appeal; other three counts affirmed; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admissibility of clerk letters | Clerk letters were testimonial; no cross-examination; violates Confrontation Clause. | Letters are official records; fall under narrow exception; not testimonial. | Confrontation Clause error; vacate felon-in-possession conviction; other counts affirmed. |
| Bevington slang testimony: lay vs. expert | Slang interpretations require expert testimony under Rule 702. | Bevington could testify as lay witness based on experience. | Bevington's slang interpretation is expert testimony; harmless error; convictions sustained. |
| Bevington overview testimony at trial start | Overview testimony based on hearsay; improper under Rule 701. | Testimony based on admissible statements/admissions; not improper. | No reversible error; if error, harmless given overwhelming evidence. |
| Bundled reference by Bellino | Reference to 'two large bundles' could mislead jurors. | District Court cured by limiting discussion to weapon. | Cured; no reversible error. |
| Judicial finding of prior drug conviction affecting sentence | Sixth Amendment requires jury finding for prior conviction to enhance sentence. | Almendarez-Torres permits judicial finding of prior conviction for sentence enhancement. | Affirms Almendarez-Torres rule; no Sixth Amendment violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions need not be proven to a jury for sentence enhancement)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (upholds advisory guidelines framework; confirms considerations of latitude in sentencing)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalties must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 250 (2009) (testimony of laboratory reports treated as testimonial; clerk notes may not substitute for cross-examination)
- United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (2010) (harmless-error framework and application to evidentiary violations)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless errors analyzed under Chapman standard)
- Flores-de-Jesus v. United States, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (overview testimony criticized when based on inadmissible hearsay)
- U.S. v. Garcia-Morales, 382 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004) (cautions on government agents' hearsay-based overview testimony)