United States v. Terrance P. Daniels
803 F.3d 335
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2008 a grand jury indicted Dahveed Dean, Terrance (Terry) Daniels, and Albert Jones on six counts charging three separate bank robberies (Aug. 2, Aug. 25, Dec. 20, 2005) and related § 924 firearm counts; Jones later pleaded guilty.
- Dean moved to sever; the district court denied severance and tried Dean and Daniels jointly; Daniels was later barred from the courtroom after repeated disruptive, "sovereign citizen"-style conduct and refusal to promise orderly behavior.
- At trial cooperating co-defendants Moore and LaChaun Vance testified identifying Dean and Daniels in the robberies; surveillance videos, cell‑tower records, DNA/fingerprint evidence, recovered property (guns, wigs, pillowcases), and cash purchases corroborated the prosecutions.
- The jury convicted Dean and Daniels on counts related to Aug. 2; Daniels was convicted on Aug. 25 counts; Dean convicted on Dec. 20 robbery but acquitted on the related firearm count. A juror later claimed she was "bullied" and wanted to change her guilty vote.
- On appeal Dean and Daniels challenged: Rule 8(b) joinder; Daniels’ exclusion from the courtroom; several evidentiary rulings (guns, car-search evidence, cell‑tower records); and the court’s refusal to further question the juror who said she felt "bullied." The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b) | Dean: misjoinder because indictment charged separate robberies not a common scheme | Government: counts arise from the same series of acts/crew so joinder appropriate | Some counts (III–VI) were misjoined on their face, but error was harmless; convictions stand because evidence on each charged count was overwhelming and jury was instructed to consider counts separately |
| Exclusion of Daniels from trial | Daniels: court violated his right to be present | Government: Daniels repeatedly disrupted, refused to be sworn or promise orderly behavior; forfeited presence by misconduct | Court did not abuse discretion; Daniels validly forfeited right after warnings and repeated disruptive conduct |
| Admission of cell‑tower location records | Dean/Daniels: Fourth Amendment required warrant/probable cause, not §2703(d) order | Government: obtained §2703(d) order; defendants waived suppression by not moving pretrial | Issue forfeited—no timely suppression motion and no good‑cause shown; appellate review barred (even if considered, good‑faith exception would apply) |
| Juror post‑verdict statement that she felt "bullied" | Daniels/Dean: ambiguous comment required inquiry to see if outside influence/physical coercion occurred | Government: statement referred to internal deliberations; no evidence of extraneous influence or incapacity | No abuse of discretion in refusing further inquiry under FRE 606(b); statements suggested intra‑jury pressure only, not external influence or incompetence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 737 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for assessing Rule 8(b) joinder and looking to the indictment)
- United States v. Velasquez, 772 F.2d 1348 (7th Cir. 1985) (counts must arise from a common plan or scheme for permissive joinder)
- United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court 1986) (misjoinder requires reversal only if it had substantial and injurious effect)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (Supreme Court 1946) (prejudice standard for harmless error review)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court 1970) (defendant may lose right to be present by disruptive misconduct)
- United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2011) (framework for excluding disruptive defendants from trial)
- In re United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (circuit decision finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell‑site records)
- United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc decision holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI)
- United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015) (warrant required for CSLI but good‑faith exception may salvage evidence)