84 F.4th 659
6th Cir.2023Background
- Surveillance footage and cell-site data tied Sterling Roberts to the August 15, 2017 murder of Robert “Bob” Caldwell outside a therapist’s office; video shows a person in clothing matching Roberts approach and shoot Caldwell.
- Weeks earlier, Caldwell was lured to a remote Jamestown address by texts from a fake identity (“Debbie Brown”); Roberts confronted him there with a firearm, chased him, and Caldwell thereafter reported and cooperated with police.
- Caldwell made a written statement and affidavit about the Jamestown incident, and he gave excited statements to his wife and to attorney Lori Cicero after the encounter; those statements were offered at trial.
- Roberts made admissions to relatives and to Cicero (who had represented him in years‑past discrete matters) and later was found with incriminating clothing burned at a relative’s house; he was later arrested after shooting at deputies in South Carolina.
- District court admitted (1) Caldwell’s written statement/affidavit under the forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause, (2) post‑incident statements as excited utterances, (3) Cicero’s testimony about Roberts’ statements (rejecting Roberts’ attorney‑client privilege claim), and (4) enhanced still images from the surveillance video; a jury convicted Roberts of two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (interstate stalking) and one firearms count; Roberts received life on the stalking counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Roberts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Caldwell’s written statement & affidavit (Confrontation Clause) | Forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing: Roberts intentionally made Caldwell unavailable to prevent testimony about Jamestown, so testimonial statements are admissible. | Roberts conceded causing unavailability but said he did not act to prevent Caldwell’s testimony (no intent re: testimony). | Court: Government proved by preponderance Roberts intended, at least in part, to prevent Caldwell from testifying; forfeiture exception applies; statements admissible. |
| Admission of Caldwell’s statements to wife and to Cicero (hearsay / excited utterance) | Statements were spontaneous reactions to a startling event and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2). | Roberts argued Caldwell had time to reflect while fleeing and thus statements were not excited utterances. | Court: Statements were made while still under stress; district court did not err admitting them. |
| Attorney‑client privilege re: Roberts’ statements to Cicero | Gov't: No ongoing attorney‑client relationship; communications were not seeking legal advice and not confidential, so no privilege. | Roberts claimed Cicero had been his prior counsel and thus statements were privileged. | Court: Predominant purpose was not legal advice; Roberts knew Cicero represented Caldwell; he asked Cicero to record the call; no privilege. |
| Admissibility of enhanced still images from surveillance video | Enhancements merely clarified images; analyst authenticated process and preserved intermediate files. | Roberts claimed images were manipulated and untrustworthy. | Court: Analyst documented steps; court reviewed originals in camera; images authentic and admissible. |
| Commerce Clause challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 2261A | § 2261A contains an explicit interstate jurisdictional element and regulates instrumentalities/persons in interstate commerce; valid under Commerce Clause. | Roberts argued his conduct was intrastate and statute exceeded Congress’s commerce power. | Court: Prior Sixth Circuit precedent (Al‑Zubaidy) controls; statute constitutional as applied to Roberts’ interstate travel and use of instruments of interstate commerce. |
| Multiplicity of convictions under § 2261A(1) and § 2261A(2) | The two subsections require different proofs (interstate travel v. use of instruments of interstate commerce/course of conduct); not multiplicitous. | Roberts argued the counts were duplicative and punished the same conduct. | Court: Under Blockburger, each count required proof of a fact the other did not; convictions not multiplicitous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing doctrine and intent to prevent testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent forfeiture or prior cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (definition and treatment of testimonial vs. non‑testimonial statements)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether multiple charges are multiplicitous)
- United States v. Al‑Zubaidy, 283 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2002) (upholding § 2261A commerce‑power basis and interstate jurisdictional element)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits on Commerce Clause and distinction between channels/instrumentalities and intrastate activity)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Commerce Clause limits on statutes lacking jurisdictional hook)
- Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) (addressed statutory interpretation, not Commerce Clause authority here)
- United States v. Seifert, 445 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2006) (standards for admissibility/authentication of enhanced video images)