United States v. Terrance Chappell
712 F. App'x 492
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- ATF undercover "stash house" operation: agent Zayas recruited informants who introduced Kali Alexander and others to a fictional plan to rob a house containing 8–9 kg of cocaine; the drugs, house, and guards were fabricated and defendants were arrested before reaching the location.
- Defendants arrested: Kali Alexander, Terrance Chappell, Kenneth Flowers, Justin Maxwell, Rasheam Nichols; charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and §924(c) firearm offenses; additional counts for possession/post-arrest heroin sale and felon-in-possession charges.
- Key trial facts: recorded undercover meetings describing an 8–9 kg stash house; several defendants carried firearms in the car to the meeting; Alexander made post-arrest statements implicating others.
- Pretrial motions: defendants sought severance and dismissal based on outrageous government conduct and sentencing-manipulation theories; motions denied; trial proceeded jointly and jury returned guilty verdicts and found quantity >5 kg triggering mandatory minimums.
- Sentencing and appeal: district court rejected sentencing-manipulation/due-process objections; defendants appealed on multiple grounds including outrageous conduct, entrapment, Confrontation Clause, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence, and sentencing errors; Sixth Circuit affirmed convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outrageous government conduct (motion to dismiss) | ATF conduct created and encouraged offense through persistent inducement, transportation, weapons facilitation, and invented large drug quantity | Government acted within investigatory sting limits; defendants were predisposed; no Fifth Amendment bar | Denial affirmed; Sixth Circuit declines to adopt due-process dismissal for inducement under facts here (no circuit precedent recognizing such dismissal) |
| Entrapment / vicarious entrapment | Flowers: lacked predisposition; was induced indirectly via cousin/Alexander; counsel ineffective for not requesting entrapment instruction | Gov: Flowers was predisposed (brought a loaded gun, no hesitation); no evidence Alexander acted as government agent; record inadequate for ineffective-assistance review on direct appeal | District court did not abuse discretion rejecting vicarious entrapment; ineffective-assistance claim deferred to post-conviction proceedings |
| Confrontation Clause (admission of Alexander's statements) | Chappell, Maxwell, Nichols: Alexander’s post-arrest statements implicated them; redaction and lack of limiting instruction violated Bruton | Government: statements used neutral terms; multi-defendant context makes reference less direct; harmless error given strong independent evidence of quantity and participation | Admission raised Bruton concerns and was improper, but error was harmless because evidence of overall conspiracy and drug quantity was sufficient |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing rebuttal) | Defendants: prosecutor vouched for ATF and told jury they were invited to "violate [their] oath" when urged to consider a lower drug-quantity — impugned defense and vouched for government | Government: remarks were argument; evidence against defendants was strong; remarks not prejudicial | Statements were improper; not reversible because any error was non-flagrant and evidence of guilt was overwhelming |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for motions to dismiss based on government conduct)
- United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) (outrageous government-conduct doctrine and its narrow application)
- United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420 (6th Cir. 1994) (declining to adopt due-process dismissal for outrageous inducement)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (distinguishing entrapment from legitimate law enforcement)
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (entrapment doctrine origins)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (admission of non-testifying co-defendant confession that incriminates another violates Confrontation Clause)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction and limiting instruction can avoid Bruton problem where confession does not refer to co-defendant)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (improper redaction that still references co-defendant violates Bruton)
- United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2007) (limiting admission of redacted statements in multi-defendant conspiracy)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- United States v. Robinson, 547 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2008) (drug quantity attributable to overall conspiracy for sentencing)