United States v. Tony Sparkman
842 F.3d 959
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- A conspiracy led by CPD officer Glenn Lewellen and informant Saul Rodriguez (1998–2009) involved robbing drug dealers, kidnappings, and murders; investigation culminated in a multi‑defendant indictment and three‑month jury trial.
- Third superseding indictment charged a RICO conspiracy (Count 1) and a narcotics conspiracy (Count 13); six defendants tried (Lewellen, Hector Uriarte, Jorge Uriarte, Tony Sparkman, Robert Cardena, Manuel Uriarte).
- Convictions: Lewellen, Hector, Jorge, Sparkman, and Cardena convicted on various counts; several co‑conspirators cooperated and testified.
- Sentences: Cardena 120 months, Lewellen 216 months; Hector, Jorge, Sparkman received extremely long consecutive §924(c) terms (subject to challenge).
- Appellate outcome: Court affirmed convictions in full but vacated and remanded for resentencing for Hector, Jorge, and Sparkman on one §924(c) count in light of Alleyne.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of Juror 24 for cause | N/A (government moved) | Defendants: removal deprived them of a particular juror and possible Batson challenge | No reversible harm; removal for false answers not cognizable injury; claim rejected |
| Rereading Silvern instruction vs. mistrial | Gov: reread to break apparent deadlock | Defendants: reread coerced verdict; mistrial required because jury signaled inability to agree and juror distressed | No abuse of discretion; reread permissible and did not coerce verdict |
| Remmer hearing re: crying juror | Defendants: sua sponte hearing required to probe extraneous influence | Court: no request for hearing; defense acquiesced | No plain error; facts did not trigger Remmer presumption and no reasonable suspicion of prejudice |
| Alleged government use of false testimony (Napue) | Defendants: government knowingly presented false/coached testimony (Victoria, Rodriguez, Vega) | Government: inconsistencies do not prove knowing falsehood; date errors immaterial | No Napue violation shown; inconsistencies/credibility issues for jury; convictions stand |
| Witnesses brought to courtroom window (identifications) | Defendants: due process and Sixth Amendment violations (pre‑testimony IDs without counsel) | Government: identifications were of longtime associates; independent sources; practice stopped when disclosed | No prejudice shown; even if constitutional error, identifications had independent sources and counsel cross‑examined; claim fails |
| Lewellen’s motion to sever murder counts | Lewellen: joinder unfair because he didn’t know/commit murders | Government: RICO conspiracy joinder proper; conspiracy presumption favors joint trial | Waived (not renewed at close of evidence); even on merits, no abuse of discretion in joinder |
| Evidence of unexplained wealth (Hector & Lewellen) | Defendants: financial evidence should be excluded or requires objective proof (tax returns) | Government: Carrera framework satisfied; evidence showed lavish spending and lack of legitimate income (Hector); cash expenditures independently relevant (Lewellen) | Admissible under Carrera for Hector; for Lewellen court found unexplained‑wealth label improper but any error harmless because cash evidence independently admissible |
| Photo array and Officer Healy testimony (Sparkman) | Sparkman: out‑of‑court photo array unduly suggestive; Healy’s testimony was hearsay/bolstering | Government: suppression motion waived; Healy recounted own conduct (not hearsay); Avila testified and was cross‑examined; 801(d)(1)(C) applies | Waiver of suppression motion; Healy’s testimony admissible and not improper bolstering; no abuse of discretion |
| Cardena: admissibility of offer to cooperate and co‑conspirator statements; sufficiency | Cardena: statements inadmissible hearsay; insufficient evidence he knowingly stole cocaine | Government: offer to cooperate is party‑opponent statement and probative of consciousness of guilt; Flores’s testimony corroborated | Offer to cooperate admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) and relevant; Santiago proffer was addressed; evidence sufficient to convict |
| §924(c) residual clause challenge post‑Johnson | Defendants: kidnapping may not categorically be a crime of violence; residual clause invalid per Johnson | Government: convictions can stand if kidnapping statute meets elements clause (force) | Residual clause in §924(c)(3)(B) is void under Johnson/Vivas‑Cejas; but here evidence showed forcible kidnappings so convictions upheld under elements clause |
| Alleyne challenge (brandishing enhancement) | Defendants: brandishing mandatory minimum (7 yrs) was found by judge not jury; Alleyne requires jury find facts increasing minimum | Government: harmless because jury likely found brandishing; sentences were above minimum or within judge’s discretion | Alleyne error found: brandishing increases mandatory minimum and was not submitted to jury; affected sentencing for Jorge, Hector, Sparkman — remand for resentencing with count 8 mandatory minimum reduced to 5 years |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (due process violated if government obtains conviction through knowing use of perjured testimony)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (court must investigate claims of extraneous influences on jurors)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (right to counsel at post‑indictment identification procedures)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes may not be race discriminatory)
- United States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2001) (framework for admissibility of unexplained‑wealth evidence)
- United States v. Silvern, 484 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1973) (pattern jury instruction on encouraging jurors to deliberate)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (residual clause of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element that must be found by a jury)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (court may make preliminary admissibility findings for co‑conspirator statements)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (general verdicts on alternative theories can raise reversible error when one theory is invalid)