United States v. Stephen Neal, II
656 F. App'x 59
6th Cir.2016Background
- Four defendants (Brent Evans, Stacey Wolford, Robert Evans, Stephen Neal) convicted for participating in a Kentucky-based oxycodone distribution conspiracy; several co-conspirators pled guilty earlier.
- Brent financed trips to out-of-state pain clinics; Wolford owned the primary van, traveled to clinics, and distributed pills; Neal, Robert, and others traveled/sold pills at various times.
- After trial, sentences: Brent 360 months; Wolford 51 months; Robert 108 months; Neal 180 months; several defendants received joint-and-several forfeiture money judgments tied to conspiracy proceeds.
- Appeals raised multiple pretrial, evidentiary, trial-limited, sentencing, and forfeiture challenges by different defendants.
- The district court denied a third continuance for Brent, excluded late-disclosed expert testimony (spoofing) under Rule 16, limited cross-examination on repetitively covered matters, applied a two-level obstruction enhancement to Neal for perjury, and imposed joint-and-several forfeiture amounts limited to proceeds reasonably foreseeable to each defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Brent's third continuance | Brent: needed more time to review voluminous discovery and prepare after changing counsel | Court/Government: continuances had been granted already; witnesses subpoenaed; new counsel retained late | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no demonstrated prejudice |
| Exclusion of Brent's spoofing expert (Rule 16) | Brent: late expert could show text/call spoofing undermining link to him | Government: Rule 16 reciprocal disclosure required; late notice prevented rebuttal | Exclusion affirmed — failure to comply with Rule 16; testimony irrelevant/unsupported and prejudicial |
| Limitation on Robert's cross-examination of Aleshia Mills | Robert: questioning custody details was relevant to witness bias/motive | Government: questioning was repetitive, marginally relevant | Limitation affirmed — court may limit repetitive cross-examination; jury had adequate info to assess bias |
| Sentencing enhancement for Neal (perjury/obstruction) | Neal: denial that statements were perjurious; claimed memory/head-injury issues | Government: identified specific contradictory, material statements showing willful lies | Enhancement affirmed — district court made specific findings; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Joint-and-several forfeiture / Excessive fines / DOJ-use challenge | Defs: forfeiture amounts excessive, disproportionate, and (Robert) unconstitutional because forfeiture funds may support DOJ activities | Government: forfeiture may be joint-and-several for reasonably foreseeable proceeds; amounts limited to periods of each defendant's participation | Forfeiture affirmed — amounts tied to reasonably foreseeable proceeds; not grossly disproportionate; Robert's DOJ-use claim waived and no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garner, 507 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion on continuance denials)
- Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376 (6th Cir. 2003) (factors for continuance abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Lewis, 605 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2010) (prejudice requirement for continuance denials)
- Dickenson v. Cardiac & Thoracic Surgery of E. Tenn., 388 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for excluding expert testimony)
- United States v. Maples, 60 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 1995) (factors for excluding evidence for discovery delay)
- United States v. Langan, 263 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2001) (expert testimony must assist the jury and be relevant)
- United States v. Lawrence, 308 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2002) (requirements for perjury-based obstruction enhancement findings)
- United States v. Camejo, 333 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for obstruction/perjury factual findings)
- United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2000) (government need not prove exact proceeds per conspirator for joint forfeiture)
- United States v. Honeycutt, 816 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2016) (joint-and-several forfeiture principles for conspirators)
- United States v. Young, 766 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2014) (Eighth Amendment challenge to forfeiture requires gross disproportionality)