United States v. Timothy R. Thomas
407 U.S. App. D.C. 372
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Miller and Thomas were convicted in a multi-defendant narcotics conspiracy case based on wiretap evidence and other trial evidence.
- The government obtained wiretaps on Miller’s and Eiland’s cell phones, and the district court denied suppression motions.
- Evidence showed Miller used couriers (including cousins and Tyrone) to move cash and drugs across multiple states; Tyrone eventually cooperated with a recorded- call scheme.
- The first trial resulted in guilty findings on some counts and a hung jury on others; a second trial addressed the hung counts and convictions were entered for Miller and Thomas on several counts.
- The government introduced overview and lay opinion testimony by agents, as well as testimony about co-conspirator statements and jailhouse information, which defendants challenged on appeal.
- Jury notes and the district court's responses were disputed as improperly influencing the jury and potentially amending the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are overview/lay opinion testimonies proper? | Miller; Thomas argue summaries and lay opinions improperly bolstered case. | Miller; Thomas contend such testimony violated Lemire Moore Hampton lines. | Overview/lay opinions were improper in some respects but not reversible error overall. |
| Were co-conspirator statements properly admitted? | Wider’s testimony about Eiland/Bryant supported conspiracy. | Statements were not in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy and were inadmissible. | Admission of Wider’s testimony was error; vacated related convictions due to taint. |
| Did cross-examination limits violate the Sixth Amendment? | Limitations harmed Tyrone’s credibility and defense. | Trial court appropriately limited remoteness and probative value of prior acts. | No reversible error; cross-examination limits were within discretion. |
| Did the district court's sending of unredacted/unplayed tapes to the jury violate rules or the Confrontation Clause? | Unredacted/unplayed calls went to jury unfairly and violated procedures. | Some unplayed calls were not testimonial; error was serious but not always prejudicial. | Counts 19, 20, 34, 40, 46, 59 (and related Racketeering Acts) vacated; others affirmed; not harmless in all respects. |
| Did the district court improperly respond to jury notes, effectively directing the grand jury’s intent or tainting the indictment? | Responses impermissibly aided the prosecution by signaling grand-jury intent. | Responses clarified technical issues without altering the indictment’s scope. | Abused discretion; tainted multiple counts; vacated related convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (overviews pose risks of misdirection and prejudice)
- United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (overviews/vouching improper; limits on summary testimony)
- United States v. Hampton, 718 F.3d 978 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (lay opinion need proper basis under Rule 701)
- United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (conspirator statements and admissibility guidelines)
- United States v. Carson, 455 F.3d 336 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (conspirator statements must be in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Ayeni, 374 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (district court discretion in handling jury deliberations; improper responses can warrant reversal)
- United States v. Kotteakos, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harms of prejudicial multiple-trial errors; standard for substantial prejudice)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain error standard for appellate review)